Is the Torah “Jewish fables?”

Posted on by
3

Titus 1:14, Jewish fables. Many people in the mainstream church are content to dismiss the Torah merely as Jewish fables having little or no relevance to Christians. Yet, the same preachers will passionately promote Christmas trees, Santa Claus and Easter bunnies. So what’s wrong with this picture? 

Moreover, many Bible teachers in the mainstream church teach that this verse refers to the Torah. They use it in attempting to prove that the commandments of the Torah are no longer valid for believers. Is this correct? 

In reality, Paul can’t be referring to the Torah here without contradicting himself elsewhere. In numerous places, he strongly upholds and defends obedience to the Torah (Rom 3:31; 7:7, 12, 14; 13:8–10; 1 Cor 7:19; 9:21; Gal 3:10; 6:2; 2 Tim 6:14; Tit 2:14) and even claims to follow it himself (Acts 21:24; 24:1425:8; 28:17; 1 Cor 9:21). He must be talking about the Jewish traditions of men, which Yeshua said in Matthew 15:3–9 and Mark 7:7–9 make of non-effect the word of Elohim. 

In fact, this is exactly what Paul is referring to here in this verse when he says “Jewish fables and commandments of men.” This is not a reference to the Torah the commandments which, in truth, came from YHVH Elohim and not from men. In the same verse, Paul contrasts these commandments of men with “the truth” from which men have turned away. 

So what is this truth that Paul references here? Since Bible defines its own terms, we must look to it for the definition of the word truth. Elohim is the source of truth (Deut 32:4 cp. Pss 86:11; 89:14; 117:2), he is truth (Ps 25:10; 31:5; 33:4), and his Torah is truth (Ps 119:142, 151). 

Truth is the opposite of a fable. One example of a Jewish fable and a commandment of men would be the idea that one can’t be saved unless they’re first circumcised (Acts 15:15:1, 5), which was the subject of the Acts 15 council. Paul vehemently fought this Jewish fable, and the whole Book of Galatians, for example, largely deals with this issue. If Paul had meant the Torah when mentioning “Jewish fables” then this makes Paul into a schizophrenic liar (since he promotes and lauds the Torah and claims to follow it elsewhere), while elsewhere he views the Torah as irrelevant and not necessary to be obeyed. Were Paul against the Torah, this would put Paul at odds with Yeshua who upheld the Torah (Matt 5:17–19) and with himself when he said to imitate Yeshua the Torah-keeper as he himself did (1 Cor 11:1). 

From this brief discussion, it should be obvious to a logical minded person that Paul doesn’t have the Torah in view when he mentions fables in this verse.

 

The Bible on Tree Preservation & Environmentalism

Posted on by
2

Deuteronomy 20:19, Do not destroy its trees. In its commentary on this passage, A Torah Commentary For Our Times states, “While the commandment deals specifically with cutting down trees during a siege, Jewish interpreters extend it to cover all forms of wasteful destruction under the principle of bal tashchit, or ‘do not destroy’ … [all w]asteful destruction is condemned. ‘Anyone who deliberately breaks dishes, tears clothing, wrecks a building, clogs up a fountain, or wastes food violates the law of bal tashchit’” (various rabbinical sources are cite vol. 3, p. 143). What did YHVH commission Adam to do? (See Gen 2:15.) The word dress literally means “to serve, work, dress, labor”in the sense of a servant or steward. The word keep means “to observe, guard, watch over, or preserve.”

Do you view yourself as a steward with a divine mandate to help preserve, watch over, and guard all that YHVH has given you responsibility over including your body, your marriage, your children, your gifts and talents, your car, your job, your home and yard and everything in your life? Do you view doing this as a good witness to those around you, as leaving a legacy for future generations, and as glorifying your Father in heaven?

Genesis 2:15, Took…put. Took is the Hebrew word laqach meaning “to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away.” Put is the Hebrew word yanach meaning “to rest, settle down and remain, to repose, have rest, be quiet, to cause to rest, give rest to, make quiet, to cause to rest, cause to alight, set down, to lay or set down, deposit, let lie, place.” The implication here is that Elohim created man somewhere else and then brought him to and settled him in the Garden of Eden where he settled down in quiet rest.” Perhaps Elohim briefly allowed the first man to experience life outside the garden first before “planting” them therein, so that they would better appreciate the beauty, rest and peacefulness of the garden. In this way, Adam, the first father, head and priest of his family would have some personal experience out the garden and be able to accurately communicate to both his wife and children that life was better in the garden than outside the garden, thus encouraging them to stay obedient to YHVH and to walk in his ways, so that they could continue to enjoy the privileges thereof.

Tend/dress and keep it. Tend is the Hebrew word avad meaning “to work or serve.” Being a gardener was Adam’s occupation. Yeshua was the second Adam. After Yeshua’s resurrection, interestingly, he was mistaken as the gardener (John 20:15). See Gen 2:8—YHVH planted a garden.

The Torah teaches sustainable living and stewardship of the earth. The terms sustainability or sustainable living along with green, eco-friendly, etc. are currently fad concepts that are bandied about by those seeking to be politically correct—whatever that is supposed to mean. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, defines sustainability as follows: 

Sustainability is the capacity to endure. For humans, sustainability is the long-term maintenance of responsibility, which has environmental, economic, and social dimensions, and encompasses the concept of stewardship, the responsible management of resource use. In ecology, sustainability describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time, a necessary precondition for the well-being of humans and other organisms.

Continue reading →
 

The Ability to Repent—A Gift from Elohim?

Posted on by
1

2 Timothy 2:25–26, Grant them repentance.This verse indicates that sinful humans can’t even repent of sin properly on their own strength. Repentance is a gift that YHVH grants to those who have a heart for it—that they will come to their senses and turn from falling prey to the snares of the devil that have bound them in sin. Moreover, verse 25 indicates that YHVH may or may not grant people this gift. 

Elsewhere we read that YHVH is not willing that anyone should perish, but desires that all men everywhere come to repentance (Acts 17:30; 2 Pet 3:9). From these scriptures, we may conclude that whether YHVH grants the gift of repentance or not depends on whether a person is sick enough of his sin to cry out to YHVH for help in desperation for deliverance. 

This gift of repentance can occur at the beginning of one’s spiritual walk as they are coming to faith, or later down the road when one is repenting of reoccurring sin that, in their own strength, they feel powerless to overcome. 

This gift comes as a result of trusting YHVH completely and not relying on one’s own strength to overcome sin. Faith in Elohim and humility on the part of the sinner is the key that unlocks access to the gift of repentance.

 

Moshe—A Prophetic Type of the Mashiach

Posted on by
5

Deuteronomy 18:15, A prophet from your midst, like me, shall YHVH your Elohim raise up for you. Obviously, this was fulfilled in the person of Yeshua the Messiah. The non-believing Jews, however, attempt to prove that this verse does not apply to Yeshua. For example, The ArtScroll Stone Edition Chumash in its commentary states, “Moses told the nation that just as he was one of them, so God would designate future prophets [plural] from among the people to bring them his word” (p. 1033, emphasis added). What is wrong with this statement? Is the verse quoted accurately? Moses said “prophet” singular, not “prophets” plural, as the commentary says. So in this manner, the Jewish commentators switch the focus off of one single prophet who would arise, and make it appear as if all the prophets recorded in the Scriptures helped to fulfill this prophecy. This is dishonest biblical interpretation.

On another note, does the “Jesus” of the mainstream church who, it is taught by many church leaders, broke the Sabbath and came to do away with the Torah-law of Moses fulfill this prophecy? Didn’t Moses say that the prophet would speak only the words that Elohim would give him (and the implication is that those words would not contradict what was given at Mount Sinai)? So did Yeshua come to do away with the Torah-law or not? (Read Matt 5:17–19.) In commissioning his disciples in Matthew 28:20, didn’t Yeshua tell them to do and to pass on to others all that he had commanded them? Didn’t Paul tell us to, “Follow me as I follow the Messiah” (1 Cor 11:1)? So how is it that so many people in the mainstream church believe otherwise about Messiah Yeshua and Paul relative to their teachings on the Torah-law? The point we are trying to make here is that the “Jesus” of the Sunday church who, it is taught, came to annul the Torah, does not fit the criteria of this prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:15–19. Either the Torah is correct and the mainstream church is wrong or it is the other way around. We choose the former to be the truth, not the latter!

A prophet…like unto me. Let’s study the parallels between Moses (Heb. Moshe) and Yeshua the Messiah (Heb. Machiach)to see how Yeshua perfectly fulfilled this prophecy.

Continue reading →
 

Dear Natan: I have questions about the Hebrew names of deity

Posted on by
5

Question from Janice:

What is the name of the Father for us today?  I think it is Yehovah/Jehovah, but the declaration by the opposing argument is that the Father’s Name is Elohim and that is what we should call him today in this Christian era, not Jehovah/Yehovah.  Many forbidding looks when the name Jehovah/Yehovah is mentioned.  Also for the word, “Messiah”, as the opposing party is upset by the use of the word for “Christ”…thinking that Messiah has a different meaning and that is for Israel. We “should be using Christ”. The reasoning for that is that Elohim revealed Himself to Israel as Jehovah/Yehovah, and JESUS is the Name through whom ELOHIM reveals Himself to us today.  Again, I think Jehovah has come to us and has spoken to us in His Messiah Yehoshua/Yeshua/Jesus and He is just as involved with us today as He was with Israel if not more so, through the Spirit of Yehovah who indwells us. My problem is, how can I read the Hebrews scriptures and enter into the blessing of the Name of Jehovah used so many times if we aren’t supposed to use His Name for the “Christian Era”?  It causes me some degree of distress because I don’t know how to work around this.   It is like having to change the word “law” to “Word” every time I read that word in the Old Testament (for those who say we are not under Law).  But what do I change the word Jehovah to?  It doesn’t make sense.  I think Jehovah is just as much for us today as He was in the OT.  Am I wrong?  How can I enter into the joy of Jehovah when I read of Him if he is not for us today? 

Answer from Natan:

Of the end of arguments and disputations about biblical things, there is no end. It is wearying, to say the least. The Bible is clear in a number of places: we are to not be involved in such, and from people who either want to constantly debate, or who are ever “learning” but never coming to the truth, we are to separate ourselves.
A long time ago, I decided not to argue with people. For years I did, but then I realized it was all vanity of vanities and, in the end, usually pretty pointless. This was a personal and a ministry decision. This decision was partly based on something a wise elder once told me. He said that at any time on any topic, one-third of the people will agree with you, one-third will disagree with you, and one-third don’t know. Bottom line: There’s no point in trying to convince the first two. The first group already agrees with you, so why “preach to the choir”? It’s unlikely that you’ll convince those who disagree with you, so again, why waste the time? That leaves the last group as your target audience, who are the only one’s who are open minded. What we have to do is to discern who’s in the last group and focus our energies there. All that to say this: who cares what people think? Find the truth, stick to it and stand on it and help only those people who want it. If you’re not sure what the truth is yourself, then keep seeking and searching with an open mind until you find it. If you find new truth, then modify what you thought you knew the truth was accordingly to fit the new truth. That’s how we grow spiritually.
That’s what I do in our ministry. I find the truth and stick with it. If people don’t like it, oh well…so what? They can switch channels until they find someone who agrees with them. As a result, some of us aren’t very popular and don’t have too many friends. Again, oh well…so what? Elohim and his truth plus one person make a majority, don’t they? I prefer the praise of Elohim over the praises of men, since, in the final analysis, he’ll be my judge, not all those people who are sitting in the  sidelines of the proverbial peanut gallery making comments about things they know little or nothing about and then arguing and debating over it. I refuse to be caught up in this nonsense.
Now to answer your questions about the names of Elohim.
Elohim is the generic name of the “Godhead”, which includes the Father, the Son and the Set-Apart Spirit. It is a uni-plural world that encompasses the entire “Godhead.” This is basic Hebrew and biblical theology 101. Anyone who disagrees with this doesn’t know their Bible. Moreover, it is a title, not a personal name. There are many times that the Bible uses the term elohim (small E) as a title referring to humans and to the hosts of heaven as well. In every place, it’s a title, not a personal name. 
The personal name of the Father in Hebrew is YHVH, which, according to all the deep research that I have done and in accordance with the most current linguistic evidence is pronounced as Yehovah. I know and have studied all the arguments pro and con on this issue for the past 20 years, and this is the truth I have arrived at. Many will disagree with this for many reasons, and that’s fine, but I refuse to debate and argue for the reasons stated above. Moreover, this is not a salvation issue, so let’s be mature adults and agree to disagree and still be charitable. What’s more, since there is no J in Hebrew, YHVH can’t be pronounced as Jehovah. So I refer to the Father as YHVH the Father.
In the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT), the Son is also referred to as YHVH/Yehovah. So Yeshua’s second or last name, if you will, is Yehovah. The personal name Yeshua speaks to his humanity and the reason he came to the earth, that is, to save humans, while his personal name Yehovah speaks to his deity.
With regard to the Ruach haKodesh, I know of no place where the Set-Apart Spirit is referred to as YHVH. If the Ruach has a personal name, Scripture doesn’t reveal what it is, so we’ll leave it at that.

Now Yeshua and the apostolic writers all spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, and only minimally Greek, if at all. I don’t care what Christian traditions says about this. I’m looking at the Hebraisms underlaying the NT Scriptures, at the archeological and historical evidence as well as Jewish tradition which all tell us that the Israelite inhabitants of Judea and Samaria in the Second Temple era all spoke Hebrew and Aramaic (a linguistic sibling of Hebrew that the Jews picked up in Babylon). As such, they would have been using Hebrew not Greek names for God, Lord, Jesus and Messiah.
Now when we get to the Greek-speaking first century converts to what became known as Christianity, whether they used the Hebrew names or not, we don’t know. What we do know is that the Hebrew names got translated into Greek and then into English from the Greek. So the names God, Lord, Jesus and Christ all come from the Greek, which come from the original Hebrew. People will have many personal reasons why they either want to keep the English names of “God” or why they want to get back to the original Hebrew names. I for one am a purest and a truth seeker. If someone’s name is George, out of respect, I’m not going to call him Harry. For example, one of my client’s name is Cary. For years I’ve been been pronouncing her name Car-ee. She never said anything, so I never knew I was pronouncing her name incorrectly. Recently, she let me know that her name is actually pronounced Kerry. Out of respect for her (she’s a very lovely and sweet lady), I have gone from calling her Car-ee to Kerry. Similarly, when I learned what the Hebrew names for biblical deity were, I did the same thing: I switched. If we use the English names, Elohim will still hear the language of our hearts, since he’s not linguistically challenged, but since I’m a stickler for truth and accuracy, I prefer to use his Hebrew names.
For those folks who refuse to line their tongues up with the Bible their failure to come to a higher level of truth is their problem and not mine, but I won’t acquiesce to their intransigency on this truth any more than I will to their unbiblical beliefs with regard to the Torah or anything else. And at the same time, I refuse to argue with them about it, since it’s usually pointless. If they want to argue, or to criticize me, I just smile and walk away from them. That’s all. One of these days, they’ll learn the truth…hopefully it’s before King Yeshua is forced to use the iron rod of his power against their stubborn and arrogant willfulness!
With regard to all the other arguments people will give why we shouldn’t use the Hebrew names of deity, there will be no end to the silly machinations of humans in this regard, and life is too short and my energy is too lacking to address them all. I prefer to learn the truth, stick with it and let the rest of it go. It’s like the bank teller who has to learn to detect phony money. They spend their time learning what the real money looks like, not learning what the all the counterfeit dollar bills looks like. If you spend your time knowing and studying the truth, you won’t need to spend your time with all the phony doctrines and arguments of men, of which there will be no end.

 

Dear Natan: If I’m a Christian, should I keep the dietary laws?

Posted on by
3

Sherly asks, I know that you’re a Messianic Jew who keeps the biblical dietary laws, but I’m a Gentile Christian, so should I keep them too?

Here is my answers:

I have hundreds of articles and video teachings answering your question. Start searching then out and learning! In the mean time, here is the briefest answer that I know to give to your question:

First, I am not a Messianic Jew. Whether one is Jewish or non-Jewish has nothing to do with anything. What’s important is that one is a disciple of Jesus Christ/Yeshua the Messiah and is obedient to the Word of Elohim. 

A Christian, by definition, is one who follows and imitates Christ/Messiah. This is what Paul did (1 Cor 11:1; 4:14) and John did (1 John 2:6) as well as all the other New Testament disciples of Yeshua did. If I’m a follower of Messiah, then I will be doing what he did. He kept the commandments of Elohim; if he didn’t he was a sinner and not our perfect and sinless Savior. Likewise, if we don’t, we’re sinners. So shouldn’t we be following the examples of Yeshua and the NT saints? Isn’t this what the whole message of the NT and the whole Bible is all about—living righteous, holy and sin free lives? Any philosophy of men (I don’t care how many men, denominations or churches teach and believe it) that says otherwise doesn’t line up with the Word of Elohim. Period. So toss it and get back to the Bible!

 

Dear Natan: Is Paul justifying eating unclean meat in 1 Corinthians 6:12–13?

Posted on by
1

1 Corinthians 6:12–13, All things are lawful. When Paul said that all things are lawful to him, what do you think he meant? It’s now all right to murder, commit adultery, lie, steal, have sex with animals, practice witchcraft, and we can also add break the Sabbath, eat pork, etc., etc.? Obviously, violating the commands of Elohim wasn’t what he meant here, for doing such is, by biblical definition, sin (1 John 3:4), and those who love Yeshua will not be sinning, but will keeping his commandments (John 14:15). Moreover, it was our sin that put Yeshua on the cross, so why should we mock Yeshua’s death by continuing to practice sin? In fact, prior to 1 Cor 6:12, Paul listed a number of sins that will prevent one from entering the kingdom of heaven including drunkenness, sexual immorality, theft and so on. So obviously, breaking the laws of Elohim was not what he meant in verse 12. If Paul is here permitting the eating of unclean meat that the Bible forbids and calls an abomination, then he is also permitting sexual immorality—a sin which he juxtaposes in verse 13 with the eating of certain foods.

So if Paul wasn’t opposing the biblical dietary laws in verses 12 and 15, what was he really saying? According to David Stern in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, Paul was coming against the sexually libertine attitudes of the saints in Corinth whereby they had permitted the man who was having sexual relations with this stepmother and even allowing the sinner to remain in fellowship with the saints there. Stern goes on to say that the phrase, “All things are lawful to me…Food for the stomach…” is really analogous to the modern phrase, “If it feels good, do it”—a concept which Paul strongly opposes. Beale and Carson concur with Stern on this in their commentary on this verse (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 713). In verse 15, Paul goes on to make the point that our bodies are the temples of the Set-Apart Spirit of Elohim and that we need to treat them as holy vessels by not engaging in sinful practices (whether sexual immorality or eating unclean meats).

Keener agrees with Stern that Paul was here confronting the ungodly and licentious Greek philosophers who would excuse their libertine carnal appetites by saying “I can get away with anything.” Paul, on the other hand, counters this by saying, “Maybe so, but ‘anything’ is not good for you” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the NT, pp. 464–465). Keener goes on to say that “‘Food for the stomach and the stomach for food’ was a typical Greek way of arguing by analogy that the body was for sex and sex for the body….That God would do away with both reflected the typical Greek disdain for the doctrine of the resurrection (chap 15), because Greeks believed that one was done with one’s body at death [which is why they reasoned that it was permissible to do whatever you pleased with your body now]. Paul responds to this Greek position with the Old Testament/Jewish perspective that the body is for God and he will resurrect it” (i.e. in v. 14, ibid.).

Paul then goes on to explain why a philosophy that excuses sinful behavior is not acceptable to Elohim or beneficial to the saint.