Is _____ a sin?

[Robert Williams]

Seems to be a question that is posed quite often, especially in the days when we live where pleasure is literally at our fingertips.  John the Beloved gave us a great explanation as to the nature of sin in his writings.

(1 John 3:4 KJV)  Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Understanding that John was a Hebrew who thought like a Hebrew and not a Greek makes it possible to get a clearer understanding.  He would have used the Greek word onomos (translated into English as "law") in place of the Hebrew Torah.  Likewise, "transgression" is better understood as "in rebellion of", so John was exhorting us that whosoever commits sin is in rebellion of God's Torah, because sin is living in rebellion against God's Torah.[/i] (The Torah is the first five books of the Bible; the New Testament is the Apostles commentary on the Scriptures, commonly referred to as the Old Testament)

John's commentary brings to mind another truth penned by David. (Psa 119:165 KJV)  Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

"offend" in Hebrew (mikshowl) refers to a stumblingblock, something that causes one to go astray.

To restate the verse with the Hebraic flower put back in: Those who passionately love God and from that eagerly pursue His Torah will never stumble from their faith, choose to stray from the path He has set, or commit offenses against Him, but will experience exceeding abundant soundness of mind, tranquility, safety and friendship with God.[/i]

Does it make you want to go and study some Torah?

Shalom and God bless!
RW

[OGIA]

Does it make you want to go and study some Torah?

What do you mean by "study"? 

[Robert Williams]

What do you mean by "study"?

Open it, read it, chew it, meditate it, apply it, live it.

Shalom!
RW

[OGIA]

I guess I should have asked point blank.   

By "study" the Torah, do you imply living by the Law contained in the Torah?  The Law given at Sinai?  Literally, not in light of the revelation of the NT writings?

If you mean "study" as in reading it and living it in light of the revelations of the NT, then "yes" I am all for that.  What little I have studied it has revealed great meaning and revelation of the God who gave it.  So, I can only believe that there are many more hidden gems, maybe too numerous to expose in my lifetime or this lifetime, to uncover. 

[Robert Williams]

I guess I should have asked point blank.   

By "study" the Torah, do you imply living by the Law contained in the Torah?  The Law given at Sinai?  Literally, not in light of the revelation of the NT writings?

True study is digging in with the purpose of applying it to your life.  The Greeks came up with the idea that study was to acquire "head knowledge" (i.e. book smarts), but among Hebraic thinkers (which made up 100% of those who wrote our Bible), that course of action (neglecting to apply it) was considered worthless.

Also, one of the words that was translated into English as "law" is the Hebrew Torah.  Unfortunately there were several words with entirely different meanings that for some reason or another were all translated as "law".  It has really muddled up things for English readers of the Bible.  What is generally referred to as "The Law" (Law of Moses, Mosaic Law, Old Testament Law, etc) comes from Torah.

A more accurate English definition of Torah is "instruction".  It is God's instruction for the lifestyle of the redeemed.  As the Apostle John commented, rebellion against God's instruction is the definition of sin.  The New Testament writings (epistles) were commentary on the Old Testament (Tanach, which was made up of the Torah, Prophets and Writings).  Every time the term "Scripture" or "Scriptures" is used in the New Testament, it is exclusively referring to what we know as Genesis - Malachi.  So to answer your second question, the epistles are commentary on how to apply the Torah to the lives of believers in Messiah.

If you mean "study" as in reading it and living it in light of the revelations of the NT, then "yes" I am all for that.  What little I have studied it has revealed great meaning and revelation of the God who gave it.  So, I can only believe that there are many more hidden gems, maybe too numerous to expose in my lifetime or this lifetime, to uncover.

It is truly a worthwhile pursuit that has benefitted me greatly over the past year or two that I have started taking it seriously.

Shalom!
RW

[OGIA]

So, how much of the Law that comes from Torah are the saints of the new covenant supposed to obey?

[Robert Williams]

So, how much of the Law that comes from Torah are the saints of the new covenant supposed to obey?

There is no "Law that comes from the Torah"; Torah is God's instruction that was horribly translated into English as the word "Law."  No one individual can keep the entire Torah; it was never intended to be so.  It included instruction for priests, men, women, etc...

The Torah (God's instruction) was given to humanity; each does their part in heeding God's instruction, which is a part of the vows that we made when we accepted God's marriage proposal.  That is the same Torah which God seeks to write on the tables of our hearts and minds when we receive His Spirit. (Jer. 31:31)  Since it is intended to be written on our hearts and minds, it makes sense that we should study it (see previous definition).

I guess it comes down to how much do we love our Husband? Enough to respect Him, tremble in His presence? Do what He says?  It's all found within the boundaries of His instruction.  It shouldn't be a fearful prospect for those who have received His Spirit and live in covenant with Him.

Great peace have they that love thy Torah, and nothing shall offend them (cause them to stumble) - David.

Shalom!

RW

[OGIA]

Hmmph.  And here I thought the Law was contained in the Torah, just like the laws for NT saints are contained in the epistles?

But, I guess I don't get it.  Is there such a thing as the Law of Moses (or whatever other name it is called by)?  If not, what do you call the 613/614 laws given to Moses?  Of that set of laws, what are NT saints supposed to obey?

[Robert Williams]

Hmmph.  And here I thought the Law was contained in the Torah, just like the laws for NT saints are contained in the epistles?

But, I guess I don't get it.  Is there such a thing as the Law of Moses (or whatever other name it is called by)?  If not, what do you call the 613/614 laws given to Moses?  Of that set of laws, what are NT saints supposed to obey?

The "laws" in the epistles for the most part are the same that are found in the Torah.  It's hard to catch it sometimes because the connection to Hebraic thought gets lost in the transition from Greek to English.  Sometimes it's a re-statement of principles, sometimes with added commentary related to the Messianic aspect that had transpired.

The "Law of Moses" is another name for the Torah (since it was given through the intermediary, Moses at Sinai).  The 613 Mitzvot were first classified in the 12th century by Moses Maimonides (1,100 years after the advent of Messiah).  I've heard that if one were to count every "law" given in the Torah, the number would by far exceed 613.  Maimonides was very creative in his classification process (i.e. he was trying to end up at 613 so he made sure there were only 613).  God's Torah (recorded in the first five books of the Bible) is what is intended to be written on the hearts and minds of believers under the new covenant (actually sacrifice, but that's another discussion).  Finding out what applies to you and what doesn't is where the study part becomes very important.  You stated that you've looked into it and recognized the "gems" within.  It would be great if more peole shared your desire to gain a clearer revelation of God through His instrution.

Shalom and God bless!
RW

[onli-one-jehovi]

Hey John!       Barging in here, if you don't mind.

With all due respect ..... I'm in agreement that studying the OT Law of Moses does give some great insight into our relationship with Jesus. There is much to be gleaned from both the Law & the Prophets, applicable to our lives today. However, we must remember the OT was simply {if anything can be simple} types and shadows of our NT spiritual walk in Christ. We are even told that the Law - Torah - is a schoolmaster that brings us to Christ Jesus.

Jesus Himself said that He was bringing into practice, a new covenant that replaced the old. There are no laws - per se - that we must obey from the OT. Even the Apostles claimed they were bondage that no one could keep. Jesus said His laws would be written upon our heart and the Holy Ghost would teach us all things. I find it amazing that the Holy Ghost is assumed to be too stupid to correctly interpret "horribly translated English"; yet Man is more than able to do so. Besides, most Torah interpretations come from Rabbis who don't even believe Jesus is the Messiah.


I don't get it either. Sounds like something that too quickly becomes heavy yokes of religion. Jesus died & rose again to set us free from such things.

I do look forward for a continuance of the conversation between Ogia & Robert.  

[Robert Williams]

Torah is the schoolmaster that brings us to Messiah; thus with minimal effort on our part, we should see Christ everywhere throughout the instruction God gave to Israel.  Even Paul stated that the were without Messiah, being strangers from the commonwealth of Israel and the covenant..  The flip side to that statement is that those Israelites who were in covenant with God have always had Messiah.  This is evident by the Old Testament authors who wrote so descriptively about Him; they understood their covenant with God.

In Romans 10:4 Paul wrote that "Christ [Messiah] is the end of the law [Torah] for righteousness for every one that believeth.

The word "end" is better understood as "goal".  In other words, Christ didn't come to put an end to Torah.  It is God's instruction for humanity.  Even He said that not one jot or tittle would pass away until all is fulfilled.  Messiah has brought the Torah full circle in that His sacrifice fulfilled the requirements for permanent redemption and allowed God's Torah to be written on our hearts and minds through receiving the Holy Spirit.

This is one of many instances where I don't necessarily think the translation is faulty (although I have researched many places where it is quite unclear), but rather our understanding of the translation is lacking.  We must keep in mind that not only are we faced with the possibility of bad translation from Hebrew (or Greek) into English, but it has been translated into a language that no one speaks anymore.  Our language has changed drastically over the past 100 years; how much more so over the last 400? Many of the words found in English translations that remain in our language today have no shading of the same meaning as they did back then. Thus it becomes a burden to us to make sure our understanding aligns with how it was intended at the time of translation.

And if there's that much headache involved with the differences in one language over the past 400 years, imagine the potential hurdles when you consider a foreign language and culture that is removed by thousands of years...

I'm not on the bandwagon of undermining the ability of the Holy Ghost in our lives; however, I have serious doubts about the connection on our end.  Far too often I have seen people (and been guilty of it myself many times) take a thought "from the Lord" and run with it, never bothering to spend the time to verify whether it truly aligns with Scripture.  I know from my own experience the deceitfulness of the heart and the places pride can carry me to.  Furthermore, absolutely nothing that the Holy Ghost reveals to anyone will contradict what has been written, so in my thinking, the manner in which we try our spirits is to compare it to how Scripture was understood by those who originally received it.  Many times the Holy Ghost gives me clear instruction when I'm wrestling with things in Scripture I don't understand.  It tells me "Look it up!"

What has become known as the "church" includes Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah, and Gentiles who have been grafted in to the covenant God made with Israel. The term "new covenant" can be confusing because in Hebrew thought, "covenant" and "sacrifice" were almost used synonymously (because you couldn't have a covenant without a sacrifice). It's important to understand that every time Scripture speaks of a "new covenant", the word means sacrifice.  Messiah was the new sacrifice that restored Israel's covenant with God and allowed the Gentiles to become grafted into that same covenant (which was not allowed under the covenant at Sinai; Gentiles had to fully convert to Judaism, therefore ceasing to be a Gentile and becoming a proselyte).

Torah (God's instruction) can be seen as a tree.  At the tap root is the command to love God with all of our being, followed by loving our neighbor as ourself.  From out of this root springs all of the other commandments.  They are simply commentary on the Great Commandment--practical guidelines for stupid people (which humanity seems to be) on how to love God and love others.

But at some point, the "church" has decided that all of that is bondage and wants to be free from it.  Probably because man can't seem to keep from interjecting his own opinions into it and continuing to refer to it as "God's Torah". What God gave was perfect; we just need to make sure we're not adding to or taking away from that.

As David said, "Great peace have they that love Thy Torah, and nothing shall cause them to stumble or err from Your Way."

shalom!
RW

[OGIA]

The "laws" in the epistles for the most part are the same that are found in the Torah.

Shouldn't they be  exact  if the old was not abolished?   

Finding out what applies to you and what doesn't is where the study part becomes very important.  You stated that you've looked into it and recognized the "gems" within. 

Mostly what I've recognized is that the Law, as ooj (no problem with you bargin' in ) sort of stated, was full of types and shadows and was a taskmaster to bring the Jews to Christ.  That is where I may differ with him.  It was not given to bring me to the Christ, though.  I came to Him through the new covenant, not the old.  I didn't have to live under the burden (ie: the curse) of the Law to come to know Him.  And the types and shadows merely confirm for those of us under the new covenant what the Lord intended for man to "get" the whole time.

I hope I didn't disappoint ya, Jerry.   

[Robert Williams]

The "laws" in the epistles for the most part are the same that are found in the Torah.

Shouldn't they be  exact  if the old was not abolished?   

Sorry, my train of thought took awhile to leave the station on that one.  I finally got around to clarifying the above statment at the end of that paragraph:

"Sometimes it's a re-statement of principles, sometimes with added commentary related to the Messianic aspect that had transpired."

Mostly what I've recognized is that the Law, as ooj (no problem with you bargin' in ) sort of stated, was full of types and shadows and was a taskmaster to bring the Jews to Christ.  That is where I may differ with him.  It was not given to bring me to the Christ, though.  I came to Him through the new covenant, not the old.  I didn't have to live under the burden (ie: the curse) of the Law to come to know Him.  And the types and shadows merely confirm for those of us under the new covenant what the Lord intended for man to "get" the whole time.

The main purpose of Torah was a marriage document (along the lines of vows) for marriage between Yahveh and Israel (the proposal is found in the first part of Exodus 19).  It was given to a redeemed people (delivered from the bondage of Egypt and sin) as instruction on how to live as the bride of Yahveh.  It was never meant to be bondage, and only became bondage to those whose heart was not in keeping the covenant (i.e. remaining faithful to their Husband).  Doing anything that one's heart is not in can only lead to misery, but it was because of unfaithful people, not God's Torah that some voluntarily entered into bondage (of sin).  This is the marriage covenant that the Jews trampled (time and time again), and thus became guilty of death (see this post for explanation: http://godplace.com/forum/index.php?topic=31003.msg863965#msg863965).  Because of Israel's unfaithfulness, God granted them a divorce, and because they did not remarry to another god (or gods, although they committed adultery/idolatry with many), God was able to remarry them.  As part of the remarriage, the document of marriage was amended to include the Gentiles as a part of His bride (if they Jews had kept their covenant, they would have been the only people saved, but because they did not, the Gentiles were grafted into covenant with Israel).

The "new covenant" was the "new sacrifice", not of bulls, goats, or lambs as previously, but of The Lamb.  The same Torah that was given at Sinai is what God intends to be written on the hearts and minds of believers under the "new covenant" (those who accept the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God).  Once again, one cannot receive the Torah written on their hearts and minds until they have been redeemed.  God always earns our trust before asking us to do anything.  But going back to the foundation of Torah--Love God with all of our being and our neighbor as ourself, is it any wonder that our Messiah said that His yoke is easy and His burden is light?

Shalom!
RW

[Robert Williams]

This is a departure from the direction this thread has taken, but lends support to my original post, so I'll insert it in the middle of the conversation here.

Law is often translated as Torah (tow-rah) [H8451]
1. instruction, doctrine (whether human, as of parents or divine, as through prophets)
2. law (whether human, as of the manner and principles which men follow or divine, as individual [law of sacrifice] or collective [laws of God]

From the root yarah (yaw-rah) [H3384]
1. TO CAST (especially arrows, as an archer)
2. to lay foundations, thus to found
3. to scatter water drops, to sprinkle

Torah is God's instruction, which flies straight to its intended target as though shot by an archer.  It is also the foundation of life (as Biblical Hebrews understood and taught).

Interestingly enough is the contrast between Torah and sin.

Sin=chata (kha-ta) [H2398]
1. Properly, TO MISS, TO ERR FROM THE MARK, speaking of an archer (the opposite idea to that of reaching the goal, or hitting the mark); also to make a false step, to stumble.
2. to sin (to miss or wander from the way, or to stumble in the path of rectitude).
3. to become liable to a penalty or forfeiture of something.

Look at the parallels: Torah is God's instruction which flies straight to the target.  Sin is to miss the target (either intentionally or by accident).

Torah is a solid foundation for your feet; Sin is to stumble by departing from that foundation, which also places one in liability for punishment.

So when John wrote that sin is rebellion against God's Torah (instruction, foundation) [1 Jn 3:4], he was just re-stating what every Hebrew who knew Torah already knew and practiced.

And when David wrote, "Great peace have they that love Thy Torah, and nothing shall cause them to stumble from that foundation." [Ps. 119:165], he also was simply stating the obvious (to the Hebrew mindset).

Through study, it becomes possible for us to step out of our Greek-infused mindset and align our thinking with the Biblical Hebrew mindset, which includes the culture, customs and language of those who originally received the Word.  In this spirit, I exhort (especially myself) to "Study Torah!"

Shalom!
RW

[onli-one-jehovi]

Oh Robert. You're out of step and incorrect on some things here Bro.


The intention of the Law was to reveal sin. Sin is the transgression of the Law. Paul said I had not known sin but by the Law. The Gentiles - who did not have the Law - did by nature the things contained within the Law, became a Law unto themselves. Sin is not imputed if there is no Law. That's why Jesus' fulfillment of the Law no longer imputes sin to Mankind. There is only one sin God will judge Mankind - that is rejecting Jesus as Messiah. The works of the flesh are simply the result of rejecting Him. The Law was and is always a curse, because the Law is not of faith. NT says that which is not of faith is sin. The Law brought nothing but bondage because no one was/is able to keep it 100%. Scripture says if you break one law, you are guilty of breaking them all. It was/is impossible to be justified in the sight of God via the Law. As stated earlier.... the Apostles called the Law bondage.


Messiah was the new sacrifice that restored Israel's covenant with God

Not so. Scripture repeatedly states in the OT - I will make a new covenant with you; not like the old one. Jesus said He was making a new covenant and the old was worn out and passed away. God never intended for the old covenant to work. It was simply a stop-gap until Christ was born, died, and rose again. It's done! Nothing now but ensamples to us.


At the tap root is the command to love God with all of our being

Again, not so. Jesus said He was the root and the foundation laid upon which we are to build - not Torah!

As part of the remarriage, the document of marriage was amended to include the Gentiles as a part of His bride (if they Jews had kept their covenant, they would have been the only people saved, but because they did not, the Gentiles were grafted into covenant with Israel).

Bible doesn't say that. It says the old covenant passed away with the death of the testator. Nothing at all about "remarriage". Gentiles today convert {born again} into Israel via faith in the sacrifice of Jesus. This faith leads on to baptism, Holy Spirit infilling, and a holy relationship with God. No one who is not Israel - born anew in Christ Jesus - will be saved. Nothing to do with nationality.

I am running out of time. This Hebraic Roots Movement - if that's where this comes from - is a deceptive thing. Better be careful of going back under the bondage and curse of the Law that Jesus redeemed us from. There's a big difference between learning about deeper meanings Hebraically, and reverting back to works of the flesh. Paul told us there is no day, or feast, or season, or building, or temple, or etc better or holier than any other. It is just what each individual esteems it to be.

last one..... Torah is God's instruction, which flies straight to its intended target as though shot by an archer.  It is also the foundation of life (as Biblical Hebrews understood and taught).

Jesus is the foundation. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus is the root and offspring. Jesus is the vine. JESUS IS.... not anything else. If the Holy Ghost doesn't testify and reveal Jesus.... it's a liar! If studying the Word {Torah/Law} does not testify and reveal Jesus..... it's a liar!  If the historical Jews/Rabbis/Scribes do not teach Jesus.... they're liars! If you or me or anyone else adds to or takes away Jesus for salvation... we're liars! May not be intentional liars; but deceived nonetheless.

IT IS JESUS AND FAITH IN HIM ALONE!

Got carried away there.    Good conversation.

[onli-one-jehovi]

I came to Him through the new covenant, not the old.  I didn't have to live under the burden (ie: the curse) of the Law to come to know Him.  And the types and shadows merely confirm for those of us under the new covenant what the Lord intended for man to "get" the whole time.

I agree.

[Robert Williams]

Torah (or Law as you refer to it) is by definition, God's instruction.  Within the bounds of that instruction is the revelation of sin, but to claim that such was the sole purpose of Torah is myopic and misguided.

The Law was and is always a curse, because the Law is not of faith.

This belief is straight from the realm of Gnosticism (although it has become prevalent in "the church" over the last 100 years or so).  Marcion, the man who first introduced that idea was fully excommunicated (the first time it had ever been done) and renamed "the firstborn of Satan."  The early "church" rejected it and so should we.  The law is only "a curse" to those who are living in violation of it.  If the speed limit is 55mph and you are driving 55mph or less, you are free from the "curse" (penalty) of the law.  On the other hand, if you are driving 75mph, you are operating under the "curse" of the law and are liable for penalty.

To state that Torah is bondage is in violation of Scripture and the Apostolic commentary (New Testament).

Here are God's own words when reminding Israel of the (marriage) covenant they entered into with Him.

(Deu 30:15 KJV)  See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

Verse 16 goes on to explain that "life and good" are walking in His ways, keeping His commandments, statutes and judgments.

Verses 17-18 explain that "death and evil" are turning away from Him (i.e. neglecting to do what was mentioned in verse 16) and serving other gods.

Verse 19 makes it clear that following God's instruction is the path of life, not death.

(Deu 30:19 KJV)  I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Paul himself stated that Torah (as well as the commandments) is holy (Rm. 7:12), Torah is spiritual (Rm. 7:14).  This can be verified by the definition of Torah--God's instruction.  Nowhere in the definition of Torah is any mention or implication of bondage.

It was/is impossible to be justified in the sight of God via the Law.

I have never stated otherwise.  Justification is through faithfulness to Messiah.  Torah was not given for man's redemption, but rather to a redeemed people.  We don't follow the Torah to get saved, but rather because we are saved.

Again, going to Paul:(Rom 3:31 KJV)  Do we then make void the law [Torah] through faith[fulness]? God forbid: yea, we establish [place on a firmer footing] the law.[Torah]

The Bible is saturated with the correct understanding of Torah and it's benefit to believers.  It is through misunderstanding on our part that we have gotten away from that.

Scripture repeatedly states in the OT - I will make a new covenant with you; not like the old one. Jesus said He was making a new covenant and the old was worn out and passed away. God never intended for the old covenant to work.

The use of the word "covenant" in Jeremiah 31 as well as the book of Hebrews should have been translated "sacrifice", because it gives the wrong idea (It's one of those things the Holy Spirit should be revealing to those who read the KJV).  The old "sacrifice" had faded (lost significance) in light of the perfect Lamb of God who gave all.

It's not that God did not intend for the first covenant to work; He just knew that it wouldn't.  It's very similar to Him giving Adam and Eve choice in the garden.  For them to truly love Him, there had to be the alternative to choose not to.  It was the same with Israel.  God delivered them from Egypt and earned their trust through the wilderness trek to Sinai--all before He asked them to become His bride.  He knew they would fail, but it was the process of redeeming His bride.  He had to deal with humanity in the condition we were in, and thus had to lead us with baby steps until perfection (completion) came through Messiah.

Bible doesn't say that. Nothing at all about "remarriage".

Learn to read it in Hebrew and you'll see it.  You'll never find any pearls floating around on the surface in an inner tube. Take the blue pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

As stated earlier.... the Apostles called the Law bondage.

That is simply untrue.  The issue in Acts 15 was specifically physical circumcision.  The Judaizers claimed that unless one was circumcised, the Law of Moses (Torah) could not be properly kept.  This belief itself was in direct violation of Torah.

(Deu 10:16 KJV)  Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. (also Deut.30:6, Jer. 4:4)

The yoke which neither the disciples (of Jesus) or their fathers (ancestors) had been able to bear was not Torah, but rather circumcision.  If you look into the history of Rome in the 1st century, you'll find that it was common for young men to run naked through the streets (often connected to pagan rituals).  To fit in, some Jews had adopted the custom and went as far as to have their foreskins reattached so as to fit in with their pagan counterpart.  When the proper historical and cultural context is considered, the passage becomes clearer. If the Torah is bondage, Why on earth would God want it written on our hearts and minds?  Why would Paul challenge his accusers to point out one time in His life that he had been in violation of Torah?

Jesus said He was the root and the foundation laid upon which we are to build - not Torah!

It's impossible to separate the two.  Jesus, being Messiah is the very center of Torah. To separate them is to unravel faith.

This Hebraic Roots Movement - if that's where this comes from - is a deceptive thing. Better be careful of going back under the bondage and curse of the Law that Jesus redeemed us from. There's a big difference between learning about deeper meanings Hebraically, and reverting back to works of the flesh.

There are some who use the label "Messianic" or "Hebrew Roots" that are antichrist and thus deceptive--but you will find that true of any belief or denomination. The Apostles wrote about it numerous times from their experience.  The only way to avoid such "bondage" is to learn to dig in and understand for oneself the Truth contained within God's instruction.

Shalom!
RW

[OGIA]

Learn to read it in Hebrew and you'll see it.  You'll never find any pearls floating around on the surface in an inner tube.

This is the mindset that gets me, Rob.  It seems the more someone "delves" into the original languages (because that's where all the "pearls" are found) the more attracted they get to the original people of one of those languages, Hebrew.  I've seen this happen to a few guys so far; some Apostolic, some not.  But, there seems to be a belief that the more one understands Biblical Hebrew (as if it is 100% possible to do so, seeing as we aren't even really sure how the tetragrammaton was pronounced) the more "correct" he/she is about things like you are proposing.  As an aside, it's interesting that I don't see this happening as much to those who become learned in Greek, though.  I wonder why?

Anyway, please don't get me wrong -- I'm all for the original "flavor" of both Hebrew and Greek.  I do believe the original reading of, especially, the OT was more poetic and flow-y than the KJ English or modern English.  I just don't believe one has to "learn to read it in Hebrew" to see anything more than the next guy.  If that is so, we got a whole lot of great men of God who missed a whole lot of stuff while raising the dead in the name of Jesus Christ (a name it seems you use sort of sparingly). 

The purpose of the Lord going to the Gentiles, in part, was because the Jews rejected Him, and by rejecting Him they rejected His desire and plan for the Gentile to be a partaker of the salvation He had to offer through them.  If that is the case, why should I go back and have to learn their language to find anything more than the next guy can find in a solid English translation?

I just don't like the direction I see guys/gals going who get so deep in the Hebrew that they start advocating the keeping of laws as they pertained to the covenant between the Lord and the Jews. 

[Robert Williams]

The inherent problem with any translation is that something is inevitably lost or suppressed in the translation process.  Hebrew is a very idiomatic language, but virtually every translation gives a word-for-word rendering, losing the picture in the process.  One thing that puzzles me, especially among Oneness believers, is the tendency to undermine Trinitarians on every point, yet put full faith in their ability to give an accurate and unbiased translation, in light of the belief that Trinitarians have not received the Holy Spirit.

The purpose of the Lord going to the Gentiles, in part, was because the Jews rejected Him, and by rejecting Him they rejected His desire and plan for the Gentile to be a partaker of the salvation He had to offer through them.

When exactly did the Jews reject Jesus?  The first Gentile to be grafted into the covenant (Cornelius) didn't occur until 15-20 years after Acts 2.  When the temple was destroyed in AD 70, two-thirds of all Jews living in Israel accepted Jesus as their Messiah.  That leaves one-third (the political rulers, Sadducees) who were loyal to Rome.  Around 130 AD (a hundred years after the time of Jesus), a Jew named Bar Kochba (son of the star) convinced Israel's leading Rabbi Akiva to pronounce him as the Messiah and raise an army to fight the Romans.  One fatal flaw in this campaign was the fact that the majority of Jews had accepted Jesus as Messiah and refused to support Bar Kochba.  The resulting Roman persecution of Jews (including Messianic followers, whether Jew or Gentile, the Romans made no distinction) caused an unreparable rift between Jews and Gentile believers (who wanted no part of the Jewish persecution)

Up through the first 15 leaders of the early church, Gentiles understood that they were grafted into a Jewish covenant (as Paul explained in Romans). It wasn't until the persecution drove a wedge between them that the Gentiles began to separate themselves from all things Hebrew, which was to reject all things Scriptural.

I just don't like the direction I see guys/gals going who get so deep in the Hebrew that they start advocating the keeping of laws as they pertained to the covenant between the Lord and the Jews.

If you would provide support from Scripture that the Torah passed away and/or the Gentiles are in a different covenant than the Jews, I would be happy to consider it.  I believe that you will discover that the more you dig into Scripture, the more prevalent you will find Torah to be in the lives of those who follow Jesus as Messiah. I think caution is in order for anyone who refuses to acknowledge this out of fear that they "might have to do something".

Shalom!
RW

[onli-one-jehovi]

Still heavily disagree with you Robert. No one can walk in faith and be led of the Spirit by keeping the Law. No one.

Look at Galatians 4:21-31

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under law, hear ye not the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid, and one by the freewoman. 23 But he of the maid is born after the flesh; and he of the
freewoman, through promise. 24 Which things contain an allegory: for these are two covenants: the one from mount Sinai, bearing unto bondage, which is Hagar. 25 Now this, Hagar, is mount Sinai in :Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her :children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother, 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. 28 Now we, brethren, are as Isaac children of promise. 29 But just as then who was born after the flesh persecuted the one after the Spirit, so also now. 30 But what saith the scripture? Cast out the maid and her :son: for the son of the maid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman. 31 Wherefore, brethren, we are not a maid's children, but the freewoman's.

Also, Jesus Himself said - this is a new covenant; not a restructured old one. I'll take Mt Zion over Mt Sinai any day.

Sorry, what you're saying won't fly. Studying to find out some knowledge of the types/shadows.... well and good. Studying to pick and choose "the best commandments".... naw! Too much like Saul refusing to obey God and kill everything, choosing instead to pick and choose "the best" as a sacrifice to God.

You go ahead. I'm sitting out of this one.  

[onli-one-jehovi]

The inherent problem with any translation is that something is inevitably lost or suppressed in the translation process.  Hebrew is a very idiomatic language, but virtually every translation gives a word-for-word rendering, losing the picture in the process.  One thing that puzzles me, especially among Oneness believers, is the tendency to undermine Trinitarians on every point, yet put full faith in their ability to give an accurate and unbiased translation, in light of the belief that Trinitarians have not received the Holy Spirit.

It appears the same tendency to categorize Believers and "undermine on every point" is not limited to Oneness. What I still have difficulty with is the assumed ignorance so many "incorrect translation scholars" have regarding God Himself. I mean, here you have the most important written communication in history; and somehow God is too stupid to provide adequate translations.! What kind of God is that?

History has proven that KJV {for example} has relatively few translated discrepancies with the original Greek. The differences are minor and do not affect the overall meaning/message of Scripture. Whatever discrepancies is easily corrected by the Holy Ghost. I trust the Holy Ghost over a non-believing Jew or Gentile scholar anytime.

[Robert Williams]

Studying to pick and choose "the best commandments".... naw! Too much like Saul refusing to obey God and kill everything, choosing instead to pick and choose "the best" as a sacrifice to God.

I'm a bit confused at your statement.  Did I imply "picking out the best commandments" somewhere in my comments? I'm seriously not meaning to come across as smart-aleck, I'm just not sure what I said that you're referring to.

As to the passage in Galatians, context (historical, cultural and language) is everything.  Paul isn't referring to the giving of Torah at Sinai, but rather to Sarah's bondservant Hagar and her offspring.  In Galatians, Paul was writing to Gentile believers (the giveaway is referring to Judaism as "the Jews' religion", which he would not have done had he been writing to Jews).  In verses 10-11, Paul speaks of returning to weak and beggardly elements which put one in bondage, and clarifies that he is referring to the observing of days, months, years, etc.  Since the Torah (law) was not once referred to as bondage in Scripture, but being a slave to sin was referred to as bondage many times over, the meaning should be clear.  The converts at Galatia were returning back into the paganism that they renounced when they came to Messiah through faith.

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under law, hear ye not the law?

There's a lot going on in this verse.  First the word translated as "under" refers to being subject to the curse or penalty of something (as opposed to keeping it).  The word translated "hear" is connected to the Hebrew concept of shama, which had three parts.  1. Hear with your ears, 2. Understand what has been spoken, and 3. Act upon what you have just heard and understood.  If any of those three steps were incomplete, you haven't "heard" Biblically.  So to restate it in modern English:

Tell me you who desire to live under the curse of the Torah (through rebelling against it), have you not heard with your ears, understood with you mind, and obeyed the Torah?

Paul was admonishing former pagans to remain free from paganism (the flesh, the bondwoman, Hagar and her seed) and follow in the example set by Abraham, the father of the faithful (as expounded in Chapter 3). 

Regarding the "covenant" thing: it's a new sacrifice, not a new covenant.  It makes all the difference in the world.

I mean, here you have the most important written communication in history; and somehow God is too stupid to provide adequate translations.! What kind of God is that?

Truth is of God; denominations are of man.  God gave us His Word beautifully preserved in the Hebrew language; man gave us translations that don't always line with what God gave and often include human agendas.  The problem isn't with God's ability, but with man.  The problem has always been with man.  If you want to put your trust in someone  you don't even know, who has been dead for 400 years to interpret God's Word for you, I have no doubt that God won't hold it against you.  I'm not satisfied with that anymore, so forgive me for being passionate about sharing what I dig out.  I don't make it a practice to study with nonbelievers of any kind (Jew or Gentile), nor do I advise anyone else to do so.  With the proper tools and instruction, anyone can have a deeper understanding of Scripture and that I encourage everyone to seek out.

Shalom!
RW

[OGIA]

If you would provide support from Scripture that the Torah passed away and/or the Gentiles are in a different covenant than the Jews, I would be happy to consider it.  I believe that you will discover that the more you dig into Scripture, the more prevalent you will find Torah to be in the lives of those who follow Jesus as Messiah. I think caution is in order for anyone who refuses to acknowledge this out of fear that they "might have to do something".

I don't think I'm going to provide anything new for you, Rob.  Just as I did with a local guy who proposed the very thing(s) you do, we both took the same passages and came up with different translations.  His was remarkably similar to yours, and he did not have the Holy Ghost or has he been baptized in the name of the Lord. 

I had the opportunity to be taught by and personally study with a man in Dallas who is a Jew.  He converted at the age of 19.  He speaks Hebrew (modern, of course) but is very good at his study of the Biblical languages.  He never once spoke of believing what you do, and I do think he has the Spirit of God at work in his life.  I also have learned from men other than him who do as much study as you do or more.  So, don't take it personally if I choose to believe them over you.  Just like me and the trinitarian: one of us has got to be right or we're both wrong.   :grin:

So, what did you think about my comment about the tetragrammaton and the fact that no one really knows how it was originally pronounced in light of the admonition by many to study the "original languages"?  If we don't know something as simple and important as the pronunciation of the eternal name of God, how can we be so sure all else is accurate? 

[Raven180]

Hi, Robert. Welcome to godplace. My name is Aaron.

Understanding that John was a Hebrew who thought like a Hebrew and not a Greek...

The second half of this statement is something we can only at best assume. Living in a Hellenized Palestine, we can only assume John received no Greek influence and remained steadfastly Hebrew in all his customs, traditions, manners, and thought. While I tend to think being from Galilee helped keep John from the taint of Hellenism, we can't know for sure.

John obviously knew Greek well enough to write at length, using that language as God inspired him. It may be that, in his learning of Greek, other aspects of the culture were also learned. We may never know. It may also be, as God inspired John to write using Greek, that God wanted a less Hebraic and more Grecian understanding of the concepts; after all, we don't fully know who John's audience was, only that he was writing to his "little children". Were they exclusively Jewish? Were they exclusively Greek? Were they some combination of both? If only Greek, did John anticipate a Greek audience being able to understand, through the Greek text, any kind of underlying Hebraisms he may have used?

For example, unless Jews were a part of his audience, would any of the Greek believers have caught the implicit reference to the Torah through the word anomia?

He would have used the Greek word onomos (translated into English as "law") in place of the Hebrew Torah.  Likewise, "transgression" is better understood as "in rebellion of"...

Rendering the entire phrase of 1 John 3:4 from the Greek into literal English, it looks something like this: All the one doing sin and the lawlessness does, and sin is the lawlessness.

The Greek looks like this: pas poieo hamartia poieo kai anomia kai hamartia esti hay anomia

An easier translation to read looks something like this: Anyone committing sin commits also violations of the law; moreover sin is the violation of the law.

The question then is, should we understand anomia to mean or refer to Torah? Well, anomia, as you pointed out, does come from anomos, which can mean to not be subject to Jewish or Mosaic Law and is often translated as the word "wicked".

so John was exhorting us that whosoever commits sin is in rebellion of God's Torah, because sin is living in rebellion against God's Torah.

In a roundabout way, yes, this is so. The question then becomes, what aspects of Torah are applicable to Christians? For example, you stated that

The Torah is the first five books of the Bible

How then does one live in violation of or in rebellion against the first five books of the Bible? I suppose chiefly, if one does not believe, for example, in the creation account or the Flood as literally happening, that would be a place to start.

But there are other commandments in Torah that we must ask ourselves: are we to practice and obey? Shall I stone my children if they are unruly and disobedient, or in some manner curse me or their mother? [ps. I don't have any children; just using this as an example]. That is Torah. May we create cities of refuge where if any has committed murder, he or she may flee so that a family member of the victim cannot avenge themselves without some form of Biblical jurisprudence? That again is Torah.

Furthermore, Jesus called the Psalms the Law in John 10:34, where the Greek word nomos is used, which can and usually does refer to Torah. After mentioning the Law or Torah, Jesus quoted from Psalm 82:6. So, now the Torah isn't just the first five books, it's also the Psalms, at least according to Jesus.

This, I think, is the hang-up. Torah can and does mean instruction. John and other authors may have, even likely inferred or referred to Torah when they used the words nomos and anomos.

But clearly, there are aspects of Torah or God's instructions that we either simply cannot keep or, according to New Covenant Apostolic Teaching, should not keep. For example, do I commit sin (i.e. transgress, violate, or in anywise rebel against Torah) if I mix fabrics? If I boil meat in it's mother's milk? If I don't force my wife to go to a priest and make her drink a poisonous brew that causes miscarriages if I suspect her of infidelity (Numbers 5)?

How shall we collect manna?

Granted, we may see spiritually that these things are types and shadows that have other, non-literal or at least non-physical applications, but the point is made. If what you are saying is true, that any infraction against any part of the Torah is sin, then we all, at any given point of the day, are always sinning, never living victorious in Christ, because whether by commission or omission, it is not possible to obey every command, instruction, and desire of God as found strictly in Torah.

I do not say that we should not strive to fulfill aspects of Torah: Love God, love our neighbors, etc. But we also know that the entire Torah/Nomos hangs upon these two commandments. This is the royal law. But whether or not I eat kosher or not does not make me a child of the devil, since, as John, after he writes that anyone who commits sins violates the law, then writes:

He that committeth sin is of the devil... (1  John 3:8 )

I am not of the devil (nor is anyone else) if they do not keep all aspects of the entire Torah. Whether, for example, I keep Sabbath or not, to my own master shall I rise of fall. If I do not, my conscience is clean and I am still just before God. At least that's what the Apostle's commentary tells me.  :grin:

God bless,

Aaron

[Raven180]

As to the passage in Galatians, context (historical, cultural and language) is everything.  Paul isn't referring to the giving of Torah at Sinai, but rather to Sarah's bondservant Hagar and her offspring.

Paul's referral to Hagar and Ishmael is only made as an allegory, i.e. the usage of characters or events in story form in order to teach an idea or principle. Hagar and Ishmael are the allegory, they are not the principle. Take a closer look. The principle of what Paul is trying to teach on is regarding:

... the two covenants...(Galatians 4:24)

Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, and Isaac only serve as types for the two covenants. The first covenant, made at Sinai, which Paul addresses, is served by the allegory of Hagar and Ishmael, who represent slavery and flesh without promise of inheritance, which means eternal death through sin (See 2 Corinthians 3:6-9 where Torah [i.e. nomos] is referred to as the ministry of death and condemnation). Sarah and Isaac represent, in allegorical form, liberty, Spirit, and promise of inheritance, which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (See Romans 5:23 where inheritance of salvation is called the gift of God).

To say that Paul wasn't referring to Sinai and the giving of Torah is to miss the whole point.

Galatians 4:24,

... for these [referring to the bondwoman and to the freewoman from verses 22-23] are the two covenants; the one [meaning the bondwoman] from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar [i.e. Hagar].

"Gendereth" means to give birth to. The first covenant, allegorically using Hagar as a type, gives birth to bondage or slavery.

In verses 10-11, Paul speaks of returning to weak and beggardly elements which put one in bondage, and clarifies that he is referring to the observing of days, months, years, etc.

This observance of days, months, years, etc. refers to Sabbath Days, High Holy Days, the Lunar Civil and Religious Calendars which determined Jewish months, and therefore the festivals, etc. and the different years, they refer to such things as the Sabbath years and years of Jubilee.

These things are all found in the Torah.

The converts at Galatia were returning back into the paganism that they renounced when they came to Messiah through faith.

Not so. The converts in Galatia were receiving circumcision and by extension, the remainder of Mosaic or Torah observance (See 6:12). Paul even asserts how he had to confront Peter about dietary stumblingblocks and not eating with Gentile believers in chapter 2 as a way of showing what the letter would really be about. As Paul continues, he writes,

Knowing that a man is not justified [i.e. considered innocent before God regarding sin] by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by [ek out of or from, denoting origin] the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Paul is letting all of Christendom know that no human being in the history of the world can ever be saved by or brought into a state of righteousness with God through the keeping of and observance to nomos, which you showed in your first post refers to and means Torah.

Galatians 2:19,

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

When someone is dead to something, they cannot perform or observe. Paul died metaphorically to his flesh, which is Hagar/Ishmael, which are the allegory for Torah at Sinai, that he might live by faith, and by faith through the power of the Spirit, live righteously before God, keeping only those aspects of Torah as are necessary according to the New Covenant, namely to love God and man. (As a side note, it wasn't really Paul who was keeping Torah; he was dead. It was Christ alive within him that was keeping Torah. Just thought I should mention...)

Galatians 3:19 states that nomos or Torah, as we might use the word, since nomos again usually refers to the Mosaic Covenant, came into existence, at Sinai no less, because of transgressions, indicating that, had there been no transgressions, there would have been no need for Torah.

When Paul writes that Torah was our schoolmaster, he uses the Greek word paidagogos from whence we get our word pedagogue. It refers to a slave boy who led other children to school. Interestingly, the root pais refers to a boy who was beaten with impunity. It comes from paio which means to hit or sting. Though it's a different word in the Greek, it reminds one of 1 Corinthians 15:55-56 (O death where is thy sting?). The end of this verse (1 Corinthians 15:56) states that the dunamis of sin is Torah.

Why is Torah the power and strength of sin? Good question. It's because keeping Torah actually, through the weakness of our flesh, accidently helps us commit sin (See Romans 7:7-11 and 8:3).

Galatians 4:5,

To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Here Paul is showing that it wasn't those people under the curse of the law that needed to be saved, but rather the entire Jewish people, who, being under Torah, were not yet considered the sons of God (See Romans 9:6-8), and therefore were not ready to receive the inheritance of God. They were, while under the law (not just the curse, but all of Torah), no different than slaves until Jesus came (Galatians 4:1-4).

I write all this to help prove that the Galatians were not returning to paganism but to circumcision and ritual Torah keeping.

Galatians 5:2-4,

2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Here is what the Galatians were struggling with—thinking that they needed circumcision in order to be saved. And once they fell into this, they began to take up the weaker and beggarly elements of the law, i.e. the faithless rituals that Christ abolished (Ephesians 2:15, where Paul writes that Jesus "rendered entirely useless" the "hostility" between Jews and Gentiles, which was and is the nomos or Torah of commandments).

As Paul continues in chapter 5, he states that circumcision avails nothing and that someone hindered the Galatians from running well, i.e. from obeying the truth. That such a persuasion (being circumcised) was not of the God Who called them into salvation. He even compares such a thing to leaven, which we know is a code word for sin.

Then Paul goes on about how if he should preach circumcision, then he shouldn't be persecuted anymore and the offense of the cross should come to an end (5:11).

Finally, in a very bold statement, Paul wishes that whosoever it was that was convincing the Galatians to receive circumcision and Torah observance would be, are you ready for this? CASTRATED!

Finally, as Paul teaches: Torah is observed in one word: Love thy neighbor as thyself (Galatians 5:14).

To say that Paul was not referring to Torah/Covenant at Sinai in chapter four misses the whole point of the allegory and is a mistake. To say that the Galatians were returning to some kind of paganism, which implies idolatry and not circumcision and Torah observance is also mistaken.

The entire purpose of the epistle is to show that the Galatian churches (and all churches by extension) don't need to be circumcised and keep Torah because to offend in any one point in Torah is to be guilty of it all (See James 2:10).

Rather, faith in Jesus Christ, with his blood being our propitiation, granting us remission of sins, this and only this makes one right before God. Less than this is sin. And that is the true transgression or rebellion against Torah according to 1 John 3:4. To not have faith in Jesus Christ and to not obey His Gospel.

Peace and God bless,

Aaron