Man is the liar, NOT Elohim!

Lying preachers!

Lying preachers!

Numbers 23:19, El is not a man that he should lie. Read the rest of this verse, which speaks about the immutable character of Elohim. (Also see Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8.)

From the beginning in the Garden of Eden (thanks to the lies of Satan the serpent, see Gen 3:1–4), man has been under the spiritual delusion that Elohim changes his word, laws or commandments and that he doesn’t really mean what he says. That is to say, when YHVH gives a command, later on he may change his mind and his commands are no longer applicable to subsequent generations or people-groups.

Down through the ages, church leaders have bought in to this lie of the enemy with regard to validity of the Torah as pertaining to the life of the redeemed believer. But by saying that the Torah is “done away with,” “has been nailed to the cross” “has been fulfilled in Jesus” meaning “he did it for us so that we don’t have to do it,” isn’t this really calling Elohim a liar?

Now consider the numerous places throughout the Bible, the Word of Elohim, where the Torah is revealed as YHVH’s unalterable standard of righteousness for all time and for all people everywhere. (In this regard, read the following scriptures: Ps 119:44, 142, 144, 160, 172; Matt 4:4; 5:18–19; Rom 3:31; 7:12.)

Who is really the liar? Man or Elohim?


8 thoughts on “Man is the liar, NOT Elohim!

  1. Just minutes ago, I finished praying predominately about a series of chapters in Leviticus and in trying to understand the applicability to being Torah Observant today. / Please feel free to respond, because I would appreciate confirmation as to whether or not I’m understanding His Word correctly or not. / At the end of Leviticus, Chap 15, which just so happens to address the “uncleaness” of a woman following her menstrual period and procedures to rectifying same by, on the 8th day, offering a two turtledoves and two young pigeons to the kohen for sacrifice. The “uncleaness” this is related to, and all the other “uncleaness” determinations of an external nature (NOT relating to proscriptions about eating “unclean” things) [e.g., emission of semen; emission of discharge (man & women); the “Torah for any infection of leprosy (Lev 14:54-57; 13:59); touching dead animals and other things, etc.], are speaking in context to, and in relationship with, the rules and procedures of the Mishkan (or Tent if Appointment, or, later, the Temple) with an existing priesthood. / Therefore – and this goes to the heart of my question – such issues are NOT applicable, they’re moot, in relationship to bring Torah observant today. Is this correct? A woman separating herself during a menstrual flow or after childbirth is not pertinent to our observance because we don’t have issues of being “unclean” re Temple procedures. / So, this is not a case of Elohim changing his mind or His Instructions, it’s a matter of particular issues (like the foregoing “uncleanness” matters) being moot, inapplicable due to the realities of our current day – no Temple, no Priesthood, etc. / I’m bringing up this matter, too, because I’ve heard some Hebrew Roots Torah Observant believing people (of which I’m one) say or imply that the menstrual “uncleanness” matters are relevant today, seemingly missing the context of it, and other “uncleanness” matters, thereby subjecting their own walk to what amounts to as legalism or a self-imposed, unwarranted yoke of constraint not intended for Torah observant believers today. It’s not a matter of Elohim doing away with or changing His guidelines and instructions, it’s just that the realities of our current circumstances making moot many of the rules and procedures which pertained to our relationship to the Temple and the priesthood. / I’m I looking at this correctly or not?

    • Bill, I get you. Being unclean meant that you could not enter the temple. Since there is no temple in Jerusalem today, then it really does not matter if one is clean or unclean because the there is no temple to enter into.

      As far as the Levitical Priesthood, we are no longer under the Levitical order, but under the order of Melchizedek.

      • Wendy, thanks! Yes, you do understand my point; I guess I confused it with the others by the way I wrote it. Sometimes it’s hard to write simple and to the point. Thanks again. Shalom!

  2. I will “jump in” on this and put my 2 cents in w/ the hope that Natan or someone else can correct my erroneous thinking.

    I think that the woman signifies the bride of Yeshua (fallen MAN) and that the discharge of blood (remember the blood is the life) signifies the loss of life or that fallen MAN will die. The cleansing of two turtledoves or two pigeons represent Yeshua offering Himself as both the Burnt and Sin offering. The woman in her “unclean” state represents the need for fallen Man to be redeemed or cleansed by water (washing) of the Holy Spirit.

    That’s more than enough conjecture on my part and I would greatly appreciate any honest criticism by Natan or others!

    • The bigger, less speculative, picture is that Elohim is illustrating that normal human body functions (such as a woman’s menstruation) make one “unclean” in need of cleansing, fulfilled by Yeshua’s offering to cleanse us from sin.

      • A few other details: 1) “wash their clothes” indicates the need to be clothed in fine white linen, the clothes given by God to the saints in resurrection, 2) “bathe in water” signifies being washed by the Word (Yeshua), and 3)…”unclean until evening” signifies we will be “unclean” until a new Day begins (the New Age to come!). In Hebrew timekeeping, a new Day begins in the evening, thus…”until evening” signifies the beginning of the New Age (advent of Millenial Kingdom!)

  3. As it relates to my comment, I was trying to point out and address (inquire/seek confirmation) the distinction between errant man asserting Elohim has changed His Word, Laws, or Commandments from LEGITIMATE “changes” by virtue of the circumstances of no Mishkan (Temple) or priesthood, and, that the CONTEXT of “uncleanness” was not equivalent to “sinfulness” but rather in relationship to Temple procedures and rules. The “uncleanness” addressed deals with touching dead things, infections, leprosy, menstration, etc., none of which dealing with sinful conduct; therefore, it is not the “uncleanness” of sin, but uncleanness for Temple purposes, I suppose – BOTTOMLINE POINT: such Torah issues are moot to us today. This can be an important point of understanding in other aspects of our walk as a preventative against falling into legalism. For example, some believers think we MUST roast a lamb as described in Scripture for Pesach: “we must be as close as possible to the original if we are to be properly keeping the Torah today.” This leads to mistaken notions and creates a manmade doctrine. We are only observing Pesach as a memorial, we are not actually “keeping it” as the Torah instructs precisely. People can easily get wrapped around the axle with being “Torah observant” and thereby miss the greater point of having a proper relationship with the Father. We must be on guard against slipping into legalism, which is a natural trap of man – another type of delusion – as much as thinking that Elohim changes “His word, laws, or commandments.” And, just a last point: the kind of “uncleanness” spoken of in portions of Scripture should not be mistaken for, or equated to, “sinfulness;” this kind of “uncleanness” can only apply if there is a Temple and a priesthood – modern day Hebrew Roots followers don’t need to separate themselves during menstration or after childbirth (at least that’s the way it seems to my understanding and us what I’m seeking clarification/confirmation on).

  4. I have heard the idea about Tamei uncleaness comes from the idea that the emission of semen or the menstrual flow is part of a “little death” in that the semen that was ‘potential new life’ that did not create life and died as well as the blood of the woman menstruating would have had a potential life in the egg that was not fertilised. Also often times a fertilised egg is spontaneously aborted without even being known except by Elohim. Likened to the birth uncleanness as the woman has ‘lost a life’ from herself in the birth of a child to the child to become an autonomous being before the Creator. Blessings FJ

Share your thoughts...