Something for your references
Conclusions of Ron Moseley on Yeshua and the early church
I thought it would be useful to provide the conclusions that Dr. Moseley articulates at the end of Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church. While the book is a fairly simple introduction to the subject, his summaries are most important.
1. All of the evidence from the earliest period of Church history is both homogeneous and Jewish.
2. The extant manuscripts of the early Church point convincingly to its Jewish roots.
3. The original language, idioms, customs, organizational structure, religious practices, and Scriptures of the early Church were Jewish.
4. Records confirm that the first fifteen pastors of the original Jerusalem Church were Jewish.
5. The ninefold purpose of the Law and its many references in the New Testament and among Christian writers throughout history, argues against many of the misconceptions that have hindered accurate study of the Jewish origin of the Church.
6. An accurate understanding of the proto-rabbis and the Pharisees, along with their background in the Second Temple period, makes their influence on the early Church undeniable.
Moseley concludes with a quotation from Karl Barth. “The Bible is a Jewish book. It cannot be read, understood, or expounded unless we are to become Jews.” Moseley says, “It is inconceivable to me that the early Church was anything other than a fixed part of the Judaism in which Jesus and Paul lived.”
Ron Moseley, Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church, pp. 159-160
Moseley’s study (and many others) prompts us to ask the question: Are we exhibiting the faith that was present in the followers of Yeshua or have we become adherents of a tradition that does not reach back to Him? Perhaps we must begin distinguishing Christianity as a religious practice formulated sometime in the third or fourth century from the faith found in Scripture. At the same time, we must also distinguish the faith recounted in Scripture from the contemporary form of orthodox Judaism which owes much of its content to rabbinic influences from the same third and fourth century period.
Followers of the Way today are really practitioners of a faith that has no direct historical lineage. By the time we get to the Middle Ages, Judaism has been reformed in reaction to Islam, Christianity has been reformed under the influence of Greek philosophy – and eventually the Enlightenment, and what was true of the conglomerate Jewish experience in the life of Yeshua has vanished. Bringing back that heritage is not as simple as adopting a form of modern Judaism since Judaism itself no longer reflects first century practice. Nor is it possible to simply strip away the accumulation of Greek metaphysics from the Christian experience. Christianity is religious Hellenism with a Jewish overlay (although not recognizable as Jewish from the perspective of a Jew). We who follow the Way must strike a different path. And the path is not as clear as we would have hoped, but we know what it isn’t.
“…or have we become ADHERENTS OF A TRADITION that does not reach back to Him?” For me, therein lies the issue: do we adhere to a human tradition that does not reach back to YHWH, but instead is based on human rabbis, or do we adhere to a human tradition that does not reach back to Yeshua but rather to human church Greco-Roman Fathers. Oh why, in our humanness, do we seek human tradition rather than the One completely human and completely divine who did point out the error of such traditional practice?
Is it not astounding that whatever glasses we wear, wherever we grope, somehow HE finds us with our blinkers and delivers us? I’m now reading a book titled Anointing for Healing by Melany Hemry and Gina Lynnes. It’s beautiful in its simplicity and testifies to the overriding love of God, through miraculous healings for some pretty ordinary folk. Wonderful! The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein. Jew and Greek.
To know what it isn’t shouldn’t be a problem for the believer. Much of God’s word and instruction (is there any difference?) is written in this form. To the believer it should be natural to deduce that the one who is not to kill, is also the one who is also to value and be a protector of life. The one who should not worship any other god, is to worship by application (not implication) the One true God. I think it’s one of the gifts given to the diligent student, we become trained to see the obvious in the obscure. In the prophetic word, it has great implications, you can hide the battle plan in plain sight.
I personally don’t know what to do with it all. I think Moseley is right. I’m not sure what to do with that though.
I think his church meets on Sunday not Sabbath. I’m not sure so it’s not an accusation, just what I recall.
I’ve seen a video, on YouTube I think, where the he is on a panel including Roy Blizzard and is asked a question about celebrating Christmas. I was surprised with his response which seemed to be that observing Christmas was no big deal.
If Christianity is religious Hellenism with a Jewish overlay why wouldn’t the author of the book live differently than Christians?
I don’t know, and didn’t know, anything about Moseley’s practice as a believer, but I don’t think that changes the conclusions at all. If he is out of step with the implications of his own research, then he is just struggling like many of us. Breaking with traditions is perhaps much more difficult than we thought, especially in a Christian culture than has accommodated to extraneous practices for centuries.
I look to Paul’s magnum opus, Romans, to find that the Jewish apostle had indeed a world-changing gospel for both Jew and Gentile, with two incredibly liberating themes:
1/ The justification of guilty sinners by God’s grace alone in Christ alone, through faith alone, irrespective of race , status, or works.
2/ The consequent redefinition of the people of God so that all believers are the children of Abraham. There is no difference in their sin, and guilt, or in Christ’s offer and gift of salvation to them.
There’s no doubt the Roman church comprised both Jew and Gentile converts, and as Paul argues in his epistle to them, his gospel was a liberating and radical departure from the old Law and the old ways.
And Paul, with his Greek, Roman and Jewish heritage was uniquely equipped by God to preach the new Christ-centered paradigm.
Peter,
If that is the case, Paul just qualified for the biblical definition of a false prophet. The “Law” was never about salvation. No-one was ever justified by keeping the instructions in Torah. Obedience comes after redemption, not before. YHVH brought us out of Egypt before He took us to the mountain.
Obedience to Torah has to be out of love for our Father. Not to earn favour, because we cannot earn that, but simply out of love because that is the way He said He wanted His people to live, distinguishable and separate from the rest of humankind. The same instructions apply “to the native born and the foreigner who sojourns among you”, as Moses said time and time again.
I agree with point 1/ – that was the case right from the beginning. I also agree with point 2/, except for the “redefinition” part. The people of God have always comprised all who would come into covenant with and trust in the promises of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There was no redefinition (in God’s eyes, anyway – maybe in the eyes of men).
The letter to the Romans was a letter largely to the gentile believers in Rome, encouraging them to live in such a way that they could come into and remain in fellowship with the Jewish community already in Rome. I highly recommend a book that Skip has referenced in some of his lectures and articles, “The Mystery of Romans” by Mark D. Nanos.
I’m not sure what you mean by “radical departure from the old Law.” While there is little doubt that the Church since Augustine has taught that the Law no longer applies, there are a considerable number of significant scholars who recognize the error in Augustine’s thinking and the Church’s subsequent replacement theology. Paul himself claims to have followed both the written and oral Torah all of his life. Peter indicates the same, as does James. And, of course, Yeshua. In fact, we don’t find doctrine that suggests Torah has no place among believers until after the Church became victim of Hellenized Gentile converts. Over the years I have written a great deal about this and my recommended reading list contains many books on the subject. The Church went its own way on this issue, stepping far from Scripture and rewriting the Word to fit its own disguised anti-Semitism. You could usefully take a look at Pamela Eisenbaum, David Biven or John Gager.
Well said, Skip. Leading a messianic congregation, we sometimes comment that we are forging a new path somewhere between Christianity and Judaism. May God continue to lead and guide us into all Truth. Keep up the good work. We will be in Israel for the next three week leading a tour. Let me know when you’re back in western WA.
<>
Well, that’s a nice flavor in my mouth this morning- I believe I detect an hint of accusation in the words “disguised anti-Semitism.. Since when did the Jews “not become” G-d’s chosen people? We are the adopted ones, adopted into the blood-covenant promises given unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
We the Gentiles who were once outside, are because of the self-sacrifice of Messiah Yeshua on the tslav, (during Passover- a “mere” coincidence, no doubt) are now the adopted ones and have been grafted into the Living Vine, and we are now, (all who believe and receive) the children of YHWH.
We are Ruth. Who was Ruth? She was not a Jew, she was not a Gentile, she was because of Boaz- her Kinsman-Redeemer, a new creation. This new creation is called the church, the body and the bride (to be) of Yeshua HaMashiach, the LORD (ADONAI-my LORD) Jesus (who is the) Christ.
If any man (that would be me and include yourself as well-whoever you are) is in Christ. The question for all men everwhere (whosoever is rather inclusive, don’t you think?) is: are you, right now, this very moment- “in Christ?”
“and become one with Him. (in blood-covenant union). I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ. (and His atoning sacrifice) For G-d’s way of making us right with Himself depends on faith (in the shed blood of Yeshua on the cross). “Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto G-d by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.” My friends, (both Jewish and Gentile), Yeshau is the Door and we each will come into the presence of the Father through the torn veil of the flesh of the Annointed One.
First stop for “any man” is the cross of Christ. Until we “kneel at the cross” and confess our sins (say the same thing about our sins as what G-d says) we do not have half a hallelujah for our hope of heaven,no matter how “good” we are, what our lineage may be, how well we have kept every jot and tittle of the law, including tithing from the mint plant- the law declares every man on the planet -guilty before G-d. From Adam to Zechariach- “all have sinned and come short of the glory of G-d.” All includes all. You, me, and our children- “so that the whole world may become guilty before G-d.” How may we be saved/rescued/delivered until we are lost (sinners)?
Good news. G-d knows we (all and each) are sinners (such an old-fashioned word-sinner)- does this “offend” you, to be known as a sinner? Ego crushed and bruised? Stand before G-d and declare your innocence. Stand before the Holy ONE and tell Him of your good works, your lineage, your ancestry. Not to worry, we all will stand before the Righteous Judge and we stand open and naked before Him today,-right here,-right now.
We (all) need the vision of Isaiah. He saw the LORD,- high and lifted up and His train filled the temple. We have no clue or concept as to the holiness of YHWH. The fear of G-d is entirely absent from us. We each need to cry out with Isaiah and with the thief dying beside Yeshua- “woe is me, for I am undone.” G-d, be merciful to unto me- “the sinner” was and is one of the most-excellent prayers ever offered unto Elohim.
Tell me sir- tell me m’am- what is your hope of heaven? Do you think or know, heaven is your home? Those who know- how do we know these things? This is my eternal song of victory- “Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe- sin had left a crimson stain,- He washed it white as snow. Yes, Rabbi Sha’ul, “Christ died for sinners, of whom I am chief.”
Folks, “it is finished.” Paid in full. Sufficient sacrifice has been accomplished by G-d the Son. What do the scriptures say?- “As you have received the LORD Jesus, so walk ye in Him”. How did we receive Him? Through repentance and faith. Repentance from sin and faith toward the shed blood of Christ, -the blood that gives me strength, from day-to-day.
I am (and we are) under new ownership. I am owned. “Bought, purchased, redeemed with the precious blood of Christ. He died for me.- But wait..-there’s more! This story does not end with the cross, – this is where life begins. New life.
The law that once condemned me, now consecrates me to Christ. What once was a drudgery and a duty, now becomes a delight. I too, may now say: “I delight to do your will, O my Father.” Obedience becomes my (new and improved) heart’s desire. What I once rebelled against, I am attracted to. “The instructions of the LORD are perfect, reviving the soul. The decrees of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.” -But who is the LORD? Yeshua said, “I AM.” My confession? “HE is.”
I am so excited about this promise from our G-d: “they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest.” “If you look for me wholeheartedly, you will find me.” (Jeremiah 29.13)
Friends, “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess”- does this include the Jew? does “every knee” include Gentile knees?. I own a pair of these- maybe I should start practicing?
The one master theme of all scripture is this: “Behold the Lamb of G-d that takes away the sin of the world.” This should be our focus as well. As Yeshua said, “bring him (or her) to me..”
“And Moses made a serpent of brass, and set it upon the standard: and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he looked unto the serpent of brass, he lived.” -We all have been bit. Who are we looking to for deliverance?
(Hi everyone. My first post to Skip’s site.)
At what point (or how much…) does distinguishing my faith as a follower of the Way turn into a distinction between Adonai and the god of “religious Hellenism with a Jewish overlay”? I certainly have seen groups (on the internet) that write off Christianity as a whole. And for those of us who have come from a Christian background, the navigation of this answer has deep implications.
“Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.”
I quite sure “them” includes me/us.
Shalom,
Curtis
I believe with all my heart and mind that Jesus sacrifice on the Cross was NOT to replace the Law but to fulfill it. And yes, ALL Scripture, before and after the Cross, points to that central event for all mankind, Jew and Gentile.
Each Sunday in communion with fellow Jesus-followers, I remember not the blood shed under the Old Covenant but under the New. If the Cross was not a paradigm shift, a ‘ radical and liberating’ departure from the Law and the old ways’ then what was it?
As an aside, following my earlier comments, I read in John Stott’s introduction to his commentary on Romans [ pp 33.ff] that even the ‘most casual reading’ of Romans makes it plain that there was considerable conflict between Jewish and Gentile believers, mainly over theological issues.
The former were suspicious of the apostle for his disloyalty to his Jewish heritage, at the same time the majority Gentiles were imposing their new liberty from the Law on their Jewish brethren.
Against that background Paul goes on to proclaim his great ministry of reconciliation of both Jew and Gentile and the great doctrines of justification.
It is terribly unfortunate that the Christian theological community has pretty much ignored the Hebraic context and culture of the word “fulfill.” Rather than understand the word in its rabbinic, first century Jewish meaning, the early Church fathers, beginning with Origen, understood the word from its Greek context. Of course, this ignores the fact that the gospels were written by Jews (even Luke is a Jewish proselyte), not Greeks. The long-term consequences of this error have led Christians down the path of claiming that the Law is finished (fulfilled) rather than fully revealed. While it is certainly commendable that Christians believe with sincerity, the doctrine of the replacement of the Law with the concept of grace is (may I be bold here) not biblical! Trace the history of this doctrine and you will end up with the Hellenism of the church fathers, not with the rabbis (Jesus and Paul). The central event is the sacrifice according to the requirements of the Law. The central event is not the abolition of the Law. John Stott is wrong. But so were Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Origen and Aquinas.
I think this is an appropriate time to post this. It is an article by Clint Branham Sr. of awakenedchurch.com, dealing with the NT use of the word “fulfill”. Enjoy.
=================================================================
Dancing with the Scriptures: The “But” Boogie
by Clint Branham Sr. on Monday, 25 April 2011 at 07:34
Let us look at two passages that use the word “but” and the interpretations associated with them.
Before we start we need to have a quick English Grammar Lesson. The word “but” is a type of coordinating conjunction, also called a coordinator. It is a conjunction that joins two or more items of equal syntactic importance, such as words, main clauses, or sentences. Specifically, “but” presents a contrast or exception. Not left, but right. Not up, but down. Not today, but tomorrow.
The English lesson is now over…
The first passage is Matthew 5:17.
The modern Church’s interpretation of this verse goes something like this: “Christ didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it so we don’t have to keep it…
Isn’t “not keeping” the law the same as destroying it?
So in essence the Church is teaching that Christ didn’t come to destroy the Law, but to destroy it.
That leads me to believe that what the Church’s interpretation of the word “fulfil” must be flawed.
This particular word in Mat 5:17 the Greek word G4137 πληρόω plēroō in the form of: πληρωσαι
πληρωσαι appears four times in the New Testament: Mat 3:15, Mat 5:17, Rom 15:13 and Col 1:25
Interestingly πληρωσαι appears nine times in the Septuagint. The Septuagint or LXX is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE in Alexandria. It was begun by the third century BCE and completed before 132 BCE.
The use of πληρωσαι in the New Testament would certainly have had a meaning that aligned with the LXX. πληρωσαι appears nine times in the Old Testament: Num 7:88, 1Ch 29:5, 2Ch 13:9, Job 20:23, Psa 20:4-5 (2), Isa 8:8, Isa 13:3 and Jer 33:5.
The first three passages are of extreme interest to us, the words in bold are the English translations of πληρωσαι:
What do Dedication and Consecrate mean?
Dedication
Consecrate
Matthew 5:17 was not an indictment against keeping the law. On the contrary – it was an indictment of the Pharisees’ abuse and their additions to the law – the Doctrines of men.
Using the definitions from above about let’s look at a 1st century understanding of what this passage was telling those who heard it.
Wow!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Second Passage is John 1:17.
Wait a minute; this one uses the coordinating conjunction correctly! That is what we have been taught isn’t it.
Well there is one HUGE problem: the “but” isn’t in the Greek texts at all! the “but” was added by the King James translators “for clarity.” That’s why the “but” is in italics.
Without the “but” the meaning of the verse is completely opposite.
Taking out the “but” makes Grace a compliment to the Law – not superseding it or replacing it!
Conclusion:
Words mean things. Without the proper definitions of words and concepts, men will come up with any number of crazy ideas. No wonder there are over 33,000 different Christian denominations.
Scripture needs to determine our doctrine, not let our doctrine determine the meaning of scripture…
Apply these three guiding principles to every doctrine;
God’s Word is True! –
God Never Changes! –
God’s Word Cannot Contradict itself! –
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I challenge you to ask yourself this question about your beliefs: Does the Doctrine of ___________.
Contradict other Scriptures?
Require God to Change?
Make prior passages become a lie or of non-effect?
Elevate certain prophet’s or disciple’s teachings about God’s or the Messiah’s?
Require certain rules of interpretation that aren’t applied to all scripture?
When the answer to any of these questions is yes, will you have the strength to throw out that doctrine?
Wow, the comments to this subject are amazing. I have to chuckle a little when we debate such things. I don’t belittle the struggle we have here on earth being followers of the Nazarene. I too have struggled with many aspects of my faith walk especially when it comes to what my children are learning in our churches. However, I know that God sees our hearts and delights in our love of Him. We may struggle and even fall on our faces. But it is He who picks us up.
I ran across this Scripture as I have been studying the book of Isaiah this year. It has certainly eased my questions of how to follow God.
Oh, that You would rend the heavens and come down,
That the mountains might quake at Your presence–
As fire kindles the brushwood, as fire causes water to boil–
To make Your name known to Your adversaries,
That the nations may tremble at Your presence!
When You did awesome things which we did not expect,
You came down, the mountains quaked at Your presence.
For from days of old they have not heard or perceived by ear,
Nor has the eye seen a God besides You,
Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him.
You meet him who rejoices in doing righteousness,
Who remembers You in Your ways.
Isaiah 64:1-5a
Isaiah continues with the memorable verse about our righteous acts. So, my comment is, Is anything we are doing actually the right thing? Are we plugging God into an expectation we have? Or are we, even in our struggles to follow the Nazarene, just simply covered by the blood?