Our Inheritance
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Romans 10:4 NASB
End of the law – In 1876, Charles Spurgeon, perhaps the world’s most famous preacher of that day, delivered a sermon titled, “Christ the End of the Law.” His message reflected the current theological view, a view that has continued to this day. By abandoning the cultural circumstances of the author and ignoring Paul’s rabbinic perspective, Spurgeon was able to extract meanings from the text that would have given Paul apoplectic shock. Since Spurgeon’s theology is so much a part of our Christian inheritance, it might be worth reading what he actually said. You may find the words of this pillar of Christian faith quite amazing:
“The law is that which, as sinners, we have above all things cause to dread; for the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. . .
The law can do nothing else but reveal sin and pronounce condemnation upon the sinner, and yet we cannot get men away from it, even though we show them how sweetly Jesus stands between them and it. They are so enamoured of legal hope that they cling to it when there is nothing to cling to; they prefer Sinai to Calvary, though Sinai has nothing for them but thunders and trumpet warnings of coming judgment. . .
He is the ‘end of the law.’ What does this mean? I think it signifies three things: first, that Christ is the purpose and object of the law; secondly, that he is the fulfillment of it; and thirdly, that he is the termination of it. . .
Now, Christ has come to give to us the righteousness which the law demands, but which it never bestows. . .
And now, thirdly, he is the end of the law in the sense that he is the termination of it. He has terminated it in two senses. First of all, his people are not under it as a covenant of life. ‘We are not under the law, but under grace.’ The old covenant as it stood with father Adam was ‘This do and thou shalt live’: its command he did not keep, and consequently he did not live, nor do we live in him, since in Adam all died. The old covenant was broken, and we became condemned thereby, but now, having suffered death in Christ, we are no more under it, but are dead to it. . . .
for ‘Christ is the end of the law to everyone that believeth.’ Now see the point ‘to everyone that believeth,’ there the stress lies. Come, man, woman, dost thou believe? No weightier question can be asked under heaven. ‘Dost thou believe on the Son of God?’ And what is it to believe? It is not merely to accept a set of doctrines and to say that such and such a creed is yours, and there and then to put it on the shelf and forget it. To believe is, to trust, to confide, to depend upon, to rely upon, to rest in. Dost thou believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Dost thou believe that he stood in the sinner’s stead and suffered the just for the unjust? Dost thou believe that he is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him? And dost thou therefore lay the whole weight and stress of thy soul’s salvation upon him, yea, upon him alone? Ah then, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to thee, and thou art righteous.” [1]
Enough? Did you notice that Spurgeon’s idea of “believing” is thoroughly cognitive? It is acknowledgment of facts and acceptance of conditions. But there is no necessity of actually doing anything. After all, that would be law!
Did you see that Spurgeon considers “the end of the law” to mean that nothing given to Moses has any further application to those who “depend upon” Jesus (but without any behavioral consequences)? Doesn’t this imply that none of the Ten Commandments have relevance? Can he have it both ways, hoping that we will continue not to murder, steal, lie and commit adultery but without any theological foundation for our actions?
Did you find in his depiction of the law a resident anti-Judaism, a rejection of all that God did with Israel and an implicit assumption that Israel was merely a passing stage on the way to superior Christianity?
To put it plainly, Spurgeon was not only wrong, he was criminally in error. His thinking and its subsequent influence on Christian preaching for more than 150 years have stripped believers of any appreciation for the full meaning of God’s instructions. He, and others like him, robbed believers of the truth. I wonder what he thinks about all those glorious denouncements of Moses now.
Tomorrow we take a look at Paul’s statement in context.
Topical Index: Spurgeon, law, Christianity, Romans 10:4
[1] Charles Spurgeon, Christ the End of the Law, Sermon No. 1325 from spurgeon.org
Was Spurgeon the FIRST to teach this?
Not at all. The idea began with the earliest Church fathers and was constantly a part of Christian traditional doctrine from the formation of the Roman Church through Luther and Calvin.
I noticed a couple of things. First, though, there is no doubt that if you are going to install your own law, you have to do away with the old one. That is too neatly accomplished, I quite believe, to be just accidental or circumstantial. Further, it was used by the Roman church for centuries as the basis for simply untold amounts of oppression and murder. Yes, first for the Jews, but just as much for its own sheep. Long before the Reformation, whole civilizations, populations, and subsets of the church got wiped out on the basis of this Law substitution, from the faithful Law-abiding Sabbath-keeping communities in Northern Africa to the millions who perished in Spain and other places in the refusal to recognize the ‘new’ law creeds and doctrines, such as the one on the Mass. Second, I do not believe Spurgeon, as a supposed Protestant, made up something that, like Skip says, already had been being done quite well for a couple of millennia. It just got a slight shift. Whereas before the Church had been boldly supplying ITSELF as the legitimizing ‘reason’ for the demise of the Old Law, Spurgeon merely substitutes Jesus. Otherwise, he just neatly lifted what had already been constructed, did he not? And can we expect any better for it than what it has produced in the past? If persecution of ‘heretics’ was done ON THE BASIS of this slight-of-hand concerning the Law before, is it not sensible to expect similar baleful results again? Error is never benign, and the end result of all error is suffering.
Error has this unique characteristic in that it has a need to legitimize itself. It will accomplish this by holding a piece of the True up in front of itself, in the expectation that we will buy the false by simultaneously embracing it with the True. I noticed that Spurgeon is employing a similar slight-of-hand here, whether he knows it or not. First, he ‘does away’ with the Old Law, thus creating a space for something ELSE. Then, he supplies the something else. Voila! Is anyone surprised that it is another law? Notice he names this new law. Find the words “creed” and “doctrine”. Then, he supplies the cred for the whole business. He buries it all under the Name of Jesus. Jesus did it. Did what? Gave us new creeds and doctrines? Notice that it is THOSE creeds and doctrines that we are supposed to invest our belief, trust, confidence, dependence, reliance and rest in, because that advice comes AFTER he names the new law we are to put our trust in. Jesus is NOT named in that sentence. Why? Because Jesus did it, of course. We read it as if we are to trust Jesus, but the whole thing is constructed around putting trust in those CREEDS and DOCTRINES. Read it again, carefully.
Only suffering can follow.
You asked: “I wonder what he thinks about all those glorious denouncements of Moses now”? I don’t know, but the parable in Luke 16 comes to mind.
“And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
V.28 For I have five (1.5 billion) brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
V.31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
Preaching exclusively about the one raised from the dead is undoubtedly more spectacular, emotionally appealing, and financially profitable than speaking the words of Moses and the prophets, but in the end it must be fall short of it’s promise. We read in James that faith without works is dead, but ‘faith in faith’ may cause your death and lead you into the place of flaming torment. A fearful thought. Michael
Skip or anyone -so there is a teaching going around that I’ve heard that when Paul is talking about this or anytime that he is talking about, ‘the end of the law’ he is actually talking about the ‘book of the law’ which is anything mentioned after Exodus 24:11 to the end of Deut. Prior to that (Exodus 24:11) it is the book of the covenant. They make the point that the Torah is made up of two books, the Book of Covenant is inside the ark of the covenant and the book of the law is outside of the ark of the covenant. They say that when Christ died, the book of the law was what was nailed to the cross. The book of the covenant was sealed with blood (see the exodus reference) but the book of the law ordinances were put on because of the sin of the golden calf.
But the catch is this, anything that is mentioned in the book of the law (after exodus 24:11) that corresponds with anything in the book of the cov (exp:Keep my sabbath has specifics in the book of the law) you would do those. What you supposedly find is that everything minus the Temple or carnal things is found in the book of cov. The priest hood in the Book of Cov is the Melchizedek order not the Levitcal order and the temple service is not mentioned, those are the only two things missing. You have all the feast, sabbath, ect. So with Noah he new clean and unclean food, that dove tails to Lev 11 would be another example.
At the end, what it is then essentially what we are doing now (keeping the ones that you can keep and the ones you can’t not worrying about because you can’t keep them) but with scriptural evidence then. Don’t know if you have heard of this theory, does this theory hold any validity or is it off? It sounds interesting but then you have things like in Acts were Paul does the Nazarite vow which I don’t think has a ‘dove tail’ and that is in Numbers. Is this a really Greek way of looking at it or could they be on to something?
One of my FB friends, David Wilber wrote an interesting critique on this topic. I copied this from his Face Book: “Should we only keep the commands contained in the “Book of the Covenant,” and not the ones contained in the “Book of the Law”?
September 18, 2014 at 8:11pm
Note: This is still just a rough draft. Sorry for my poor grammar!
I’ve recently been discussing an interesting view of the Torah with two individuals over e-mail. One of these individuals has written two books on the topic while the other is actively teaching their ideas at conferences and congregations around the United States. Normally I tend to keep to myself and let people believe what they want. I rarely feel the desire to publically address what I consider to be inaccurate teaching on the Bible, but I’ve received quite a few questions from people asking about the information brought forth by these two individuals. After privately trying to reason with both of them, I’ve decided that I should go ahead and write this public response.
The Application of Torah
For those who are unfamiliar with my views concerning the role of Torah in the life of Believers, I’ll give a quick summary: I am a Torah-pursuant Christian. That means that I follow Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) and I believe that the Bible teaches me to obey the commandments and principles outlined in the Torah (often translated in English as “law”) given through the Prophet Moses. Stated more negatively, I deny the belief that the Torah is, at best, no longer relevant to Christians, or at worst, a burdensome yoke that was abolished and taken out of the way by Yeshua’s death and resurrection. According to Yeshua, nothing from the Torah will pass away until heaven and earth passes away first (Matthew 5:17-19). Heaven and earth do not pass away until there is no more crying, mourning, pain, nor death (Revelation 21:1-4). We still have crying, mourning, pain, and death; therefore, it follows logically that nothing from the Torah has passed away yet.
Many aspects of the Torah cannot be kept today due to the fact that the elements required to Biblically observe them do not exist right now. For instance, we cannot observe the commandments concerning sacrifices because there is no Temple in Jerusalem at which to make sacrifices. However, there are many aspects of Torah that we should keep today, such as: the Sabbath, dietary instructions, wearing tzitziyot, and not lying, stealing, coveting, etc. Also, although there are some aspects of the feasts that cannot be observed right now (e.g. sacrifices at the Temple), we keep the memory of the Feasts to the best of our ability while we’re not in the land. This would include keeping the annual Sabbaths and practices associated with the Feast days (such as ridding our homes of leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread and fasting during Yom Kippur).
I say all that to make my point that when it comes to figuring out which parts of Torah are applicable for today, it is not a matter of “picking and choosing”; it’s a matter of whether some things are even possible. For instance, in Missouri there are speed limit laws that apply to certain roads. If a road is under construction and blocked off to traffic, then the speed limit of that road becomes inapplicable. You can’t accuse a law-abiding citizen of Missouri of ignoring the speed limit of that road if they physically can’t apply it. In the same way, many of the laws in Torah require certain specific elements in order to be properly observed. As stated above, many of those elements do not exist today (e.g. a physical Temple in Jerusalem); therefore, they become inapplicable until the road is no longer under construction, so-to-speak. Furthermore, many laws in Torah only apply to specific people. To use the same analogy, if you don’t have a driver’s license, then none of Missouri’s driving laws apply to you. They only apply to drivers. In the same way, Torah gives specific laws to specific people (Priests, Levities, Judges, farmers, women, poor people, rich people, etc.). Therefore, if you are not a Priest or Levite operating within a physical Temple in Jerusalem, or a judge over theocratic Israel appointed by God Himself, then the specific laws given to those groups of people don’t apply to you.
One day Yeshua will return and reestablish the Temple in Jerusalem. Israel will be a theocratic government with the Torah as its constitution again. Much of the Torah will apply again at that time, but in the meantime, we can only do the best we can with where we are.
A New Revelation of Torah?
What is stated above has been my view for the past seven years. I’m used to having to defend my views against “mainstream Christians” who claim that the Torah is fulfilled in Christ, which according to them means that we don’t have to keep commands like a literal Sabbath anymore. However, recently the validity of the Torah is being questioned from a different angle. There are some who are now teaching that Torah-pursuant Christians and Messianics, such as myself, are clinging to the “status quo” by holding to our current Messianic theology. It is said by some that, until we accept their new revelation, we are rejecting our full inheritance as “Melchizedek priests.”
So, what exactly is this “new revelation?”
Some are teaching that God’s original plan was that His people were all supposed to be priests and only follow the commands that are found in “the Book of the Covenant.” They say that Exodus 19:5-6 are the opening lines of this covenant and that it ends when the Covenant is ratified at Exodus 24:8.
“Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” – Exodus 24:7-8
Israel broke this Covenant when they made the golden calf (Exodus 32). Since Israel was unfaithful, God was going to wipe them out; however, Moses pleaded for them, and so God decided not to kill them. Instead, God made a “plan B.” The plan B was to establish the Levitical Priesthood. Moreover, God decided to add “the Book of the Law” to the Covenant, which apparently includes all of God’s commands from Exodus 24:12 – Deuteronomy 31:26.
When Messiah Yeshua died and was resurrected, the Melchizedek priesthood took the place of the Levitical priesthood, and therefore the Book of the Law was removed and taken out of the way. This means that followers of Yeshua today only need to keep the commands found in the Book of the Covenant, because that was the original Covenant to which God’s people were called as Melchizedek priests (before they forfeited this calling and God made the Levites priests instead and added the Book of the Law). God’s commandments that are found in the Book of the Law, plus the entire Levitical priesthood, were only temporary until Yeshua came and replaced the Levitical priesthood with the Melchizedek priesthood.
The above hypothesis is simply another attempt at reconciling the difficult passages in the New Testament that seem to speak negatively about the law (Torah). Basically, their view is that any time the New Testament seems to say that the law is done away with or burdensome or temporary, it’s actually talking about the “Book of the Law” (the commands contained in Exodus 24:12 – Deuteronomy 31:26). Again, according to their view, the Book of the Law was added because of transgression (Galatians 3:19) — specifically the transgression of the golden calf. The Book of the Law was not part of the original covenant. Moreover, it was placed on the side of the ark (Deuteronomy 31:26), it’s “against us,” it’s not any good, and it is now removed and taken out of the way because Yeshua established the Melchizedek priesthood. Therefore, if anyone keeps and teaches the commands contained in the Book of the Law (e.g. wearing tzitziyot or fasting on Yom Kippur), they are living in legalistic bondage and promulgating the religious status quo!
Below are several reasons why you should reject this theory:
1) The Bible never makes a clear distinction between the Book of the Covenant and the Book of the Law. In fact, sometimes the two titles are used synonymously.
For example: 2 Chronicles 34 tells us that the “Book of the Law” was found by Hilkiah the priest and brought to King Josiah (vs. 14-21). This same book is called the “Book of the Covenant” when King Josiah reads it to the elders of Judah and Jerusalem (vs. 29-30). This same exact scenario happens in 2 Kings 22 & 23: The Book of the Law is found (2 Kings 22:8), and the same book is called the Book of the Covenant (2 Kings 23:2).
When I brought this point up to the two individuals promoting this theory, they responded by saying that if Hilkiah had found the Book of the Law then he would have also found the Book of the Covenant since they were right next to each other (Deuteronomy 31:26). **Quick side note: They also believe that all the commands throughout the entire Book of the Covenant (Exodus 24:12-24:8) were written on the stone tablets; not just the Ten Commandments. This will be addressed later** The problem with their response is that they are assuming that there were, in fact, two books found. However, there is nothing from the text indicating that there were two books found. The plain reading of the text is that only one book is being referred to.
They cited Ezekiel 20:25 as their proof text to support their view that there is a dichotomy between the Book of the Law and the Book of the Covenant:
“because they had not executed My judgments, but had despised My statutes, profaned My Sabbaths, and their eyes were fixed on their fathers idols. 25 Therefore I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live; 26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their ritual gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire, that I might make them desolate and that they might know that I am the Lord.” -Ezekiel 20:24-26
These “not good” statutes, they say, are referring to the “Book of the Law.” However, there are several flaws with this interpretation. First of all, if Ezekiel was speaking against keeping certain commandments in Torah, then he would be a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13. Moreover, Deuteronomy 30 states that the laws were given for a blessing, not for harm or punishment. And verse 14 of chapter 30 specifically says that we CAN do the Book of the Law. Therefore, the “statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live” in Ezekiel 20:25 cannot possibly be referring to any of God’s commandments.
A reasonable alternative interpretation is that these “not good” statutes and judgments were those adopted from the heathens. It seems more plausible that the text is saying “because you have broken MY commandments (vs 24), I am going to give you over to these pagan ways that I pronounce unclean because they pass their firstborn through the fires of Molech”. This is in the same way that it is said in Isaiah 63:17, “O LORD, why do you make us wander from your ways and harden our heart, so that we fear you not?” Also consider Acts 7:42, “But God turned away from them and gave them over to worship the host of heaven.” Romans 1:21-28 says that God gave the heathens “up to uncleanness,” “unto vile affections,” “to a reprobate mind.” There are many other examples like this. Ezekiel’s point was that the consequences of disobedience and rebellion against God’s commands leads the sinner on to even greater sin. The Israelites rebelled against God; the natural consequence, therefore, was that they fell under the influence of the heathens.
2) The Priesthood was given to Aaron and his sons before the golden calf incident:
“Then bring near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests—Aaron and Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.” –Exodus 28:1
If God established the priesthood and added the Book of the Law as a result of the golden calf, then why does it appear that it was His intention to give the Priesthood to Aaron before the golden calf incident ever happened? It’s also helpful to note that all Priests were Levites, but not all Levites were Priests. Levites actually served as helpers to the Priests. They had some priestly-type duties, but they were not Priests themselves. It could be said that the Levites (not the Priests) were formally set apart for this service after the golden calf incident (Exodus 32:25-29). It is inferred that they replaced the firstborn for this particular service based on passages such as Numbers 3:12. However, this was NOT a change in priesthood, but rather a change in the office of priestly helpers to the sons of Aaron. Again, the priesthood on earth was established and given to Aaron and his sons before the golden calf incident.
Their response to this point was simply to say that some parts of Torah weren’t written in chronological order. In other words, they believe that Exodus 28 happened after Exodus 32. I fully concede that parts of the Torah are not written in chronological order; however, some parts of it are — and the transition between the end of Exodus 31:18 (right after all the tabernacle and priesthood commands) and the beginning of Exodus 32 strongly appear to be chronological. He gives Tabernacle commandments in chapter 31 and ends the chapter saying: “31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.” This tells us that Moses is on the mountain as God gives him a ton of commandments concerning the Tabernacle and then writes the Ten Commandments on stone. The very next chapter starts out telling us that Moses is still on the mountain when the golden calf incident occurs, and then verse 15 tells us that Moses came down from the Mountain with the stone tablets. One would need a very strong textual argument to show that this is not chronological.
Their entire hypothesis rests on a reverse chronology in this story, and because the foundation of this theory is based on this reverse chronology, this must be addressed — not just in theory, but with irrefutable proof. The only possible argument that could be made is that the commands given throughout Exodus 25 – 31 are not what Moses received when he was on the Mountain for 40 days and 40 nights, as indicated by Exodus 24:18. This argument is flawed, however, because the narrative picks up in Exodus 32 with Moses coming down from the mountain. What was he doing on the mountain if not receiving the commands given in Exodus 25-31? Why would the Torah be written in such a confusing way? Every indication is that the entire section is chronological.
It must be reiterated, also, that it is not stated anywhere that there was a change in the priesthood at the golden calf incident. If anything, the ordination of the Levities was established at that point. The Levites are not necessarily priests, though (again, all priests are Levites, but not all Levites are priests).
3. God says that we are blessed when we keep His commands contained in the Book of the Law.
These two individuals talk about how the Book of the Law was set beside the Ark of the Covenant as a witness against the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:26). They interpret this to mean that the instructions in the Book of the Law were added as a punishment; hence they were “against them.” They later correlate this concept with verses like Colossians 2:14 where it talks about Yeshua canceling the record of debt that stood “against us,” and they read the “Book of the Law” into that passage. Their conclusion, therefore, is that Yeshua took away the commandments contained in their definition of the Book of the Law, leaving only their definition of the Book of the Covenant to remain for Believers.
If the commands are a blessing then how can it be said that they are against us or added as a punishment for making an idol?
When we read the context we discover that Deuteronomy 31:26 is teaching us that breaking God’s law brings disaster. The Book of the Law stood as a “witness against them” because it informed them of the consequences of their actions. We’ve all broken the law; therefore, it stands as a witness against us because of our sin. Yeshua took away the consequence of eternal damnation that we all deserve for breaking the law — nailing our record of debt to the cross. He did not take away the law.
4. There is no reason to believe that Covenants made after Exodus 24:8 are somehow less valid or binding.
A covenant is an agreement between two parties. Just because you have one agreement doesn’t mean that you can’t have more. When two people get married, they agree to certain terms of a Covenant (e.g., “in sickness and in health”). After the first week of marriage, there are hundreds of laws that are “added” to that agreement (e.g., “don’t leave the toilet seat up”). Is God not allowed to have additional expectations of His people after giving them expectations in Exodus 20-24?
When I asked these two individuals this question, their response was that the laws given after Exodus 24:8 were “not a covenant.” In fact, here is their exact quote from our e-mail exchange: “BoL [Book of the Law] is Non-Covenant Torah, that was later added as a witness against us for breaking Covenant Torah. These later BoL laws are Not Covenant.”
However, this is what Deuteronomy 29:1 says about the Book of the Law:
“These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with thechildren of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made withthem in Horeb.” – Deuteronomy 29:1
This is after Exodus 24:8, and God makes it clear that the Book of the Law was called “Covenant.”
Again, there is no reason to assume that we shouldn’t follow one of God’s commandments just because He commanded it after Exodus 24:8.
5. The “change in the priesthood” was not a change to the earthly priesthood.
“Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.” – Hebrews 8:4
Hebrews 8:4 tells us that Yeshua cannot be a priest on earth, because according to the law, the earthly priesthood was given to Aaron (Exodus 28:1). This tells us that Yeshua’s heavenly priesthood did not affect the earthly priesthood. The earthly priestly system is a copy and a shadow of the heavenly system. The heavenly tabernacle does not replace the earthly tabernacle, just like the establishment of the earthly tabernacle didn’t replace the heavenly tabernacle (Exodus 25:9,40).
Their response to this point was simply to ask which priesthood we are part of if Yeshua’s priesthood is not on earth (citing 1 Peter 2:9 which states that we [Followers of Yeshua] are a royal priesthood). My question is, if Yeshua is not a priest on earth, then why are we? Furthermore, Peter clearly states that he is referring to a spiritual priesthood, not an earthly one (see verse 5 of 1 Peter 2). Not all of us are priests on earth; only the sons of Aaron are priests on earth. However, we all should function as priests from a spiritual perspective (priest means minister and servant of the High Priest). Peter is simply midrashing the quote from Exodus and applying it to Believers in Yeshua. He’s drawing a Spiritual principle to say that we should behave as holy ministers and servants of Yeshua. He isn’t randomly declaring that Christians have replaced the sons of Aaron as the literal priests on earth.
6. Yeshua said that nothing from the Torah (including the Book of the Law) will pass away until heaven and earth passes away (Matthew 5:17-19).
Yeshua was referring to a literal future event, which doesn’t occur until Revelation 21 – AFTER the Millennial reign. Therefore, nothing has passed away yet, not even the commands contained in the Book of the Law.
Their response was essentially to agree that nothing has passed away, but they said that we still don’t have to keep the commands contained in the Book of the Law anymore because of the change in priesthood, which kind of makes the phrase “pass away” rather meaningless.
7. God has more than Ten Commandments.
As briefly mentioned above, one of the aspects of this hypothesis is that all of the commands contained in the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 19:5 – 24:8) were written on the stone tablets. However, Deuteronomy 5:22 states that it was only the Ten Commandments that were written on the two tablets. After Moses gets done repeating the Ten Commandments, he says: “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on the two tablets of stone and gave them to me.” Also, Deuteronomy 10:4 states: “And he wrote on the tablets, in the same writing as before, the Ten Commandments that the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. And the Lord gave them to me.”
Their response was that the Hebrew word “lo,” which is translated in English as “no” in Deut. 4:22 doesn’t actually mean “no.” I’m not a Hebrew scholar, but I have checked multiple concordances and have not been able to verify this at all. Furthermore, they claimed that the Hebrew word “Eser,” translated in English as “ten” (Deut 10:4), could actually mean more than ten. This Hebrew word is used 157 times in the Bible, and every single instance it means the exact number ten. Again, I checked multiple concordances and have not been able to verify this. This is actually very critical, because if these Hebrew words were translated correctly, then it would mean that what these individuals are defining as “Covenant commandments” — the only ones we should still be keeping — are actually limited to only the Ten Commandments.
8. There is no reason to assume that the commands placed on the side of the Ark are less important or valid than the commands placed inside the Ark.
Furthermore, if the commands placed on the side of the Ark of the Covenant are somehow less important, then by that formula, the entire rest of the Bible, including the New Testament documents, are therefore even LESS important as they are not included in the Temple at all!
9. There is no evidence that this theory is true.
Why is there not a single trace of clear instruction or dialogue about this distinction in the entire Bible? If this theory is true, then it would most certainly be THE MOST important doctrinal revelation since creation, and you would think that the prophets would have foretold it. Also, you would think that the apostles would have gone into great depth on the subject so that there would be no confusion. Furthermore, there is sooo much arguing between Paul and his opponents on the issue of Torah. However, not one single time did he think to just explain to the Circumcision Party that there are two different books!? Paul is brilliant and it seems illogical that he would miss such an opportunity to set the record straight. On the other hand, he seems to defend the Torah to the hilt. This topic is extremely controversial between Torah-based Messianics today and those who hold to this doctrine; how much more would it be controversial in a world full of Jewish Messianics who were even more zealous about the Law since the Temple was still standing? Yet there is not a single biblical or extra biblical source telling us of such arguments? This alone makes it very suspicious to me as a modern day creation.
10. The Apostles all continued to keep and teach the commands contained in the Book of the Law.
Paul says that “all” Scripture is “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” This would include the Book of the Law. James makes the judgment that the Gentiles will learn the rest of the Torah every Sabbath in the synagogue (Acts 15:21) knowing that the rabbis would be teaching the Book of the Law in addition to the Book of the Covenant. Is James advocating the Gentiles learning false doctrine? Furthermore, all four of the commands listed in Acts 15:20 that Gentiles were specifically commanded to do are found in the “Book of the Law.” Paul continued to observe Yom Kippur by fasting (Acts28:9). The list goes on and on…
There are many more reasons that I can list, but you get the idea. In conclusion, if and until these objections are addressed, there is simply no reason to believe that there is a dichotomy between the Book of the Covenant and the Book of the Law, or that the Book of the Law is done away with. As Paul says, “all” scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…not just the parts of Scripture before Exodus 24:8.”
I actually saw this post on FB actually Tanya and I have to say it’s very well articulated (I’m a PFT fan as well). I’m hoping that Skip has a chance to look at the argument. When I read David Wilber’s before I thought he did a great job articulating it. For me the counter argument to the BOC and BOL is simply they met up at Shavuot AT THE TEMPLE! Which implies that the Temple still meant something to them. Past that Paul took a Nazarite vow which needs a sacrifice. I think the end of the argument comes down to the Hebrew perception of time (which would be God’s perception of time). Skip has a book on it and I’ve tried to read but it was over my head at the time, but I’m going to give another go to it shortly. With everything said on both sides my life doesn’t really change one way or another. I look at it as if if you keep the ones you can keep and the ones that apply to you then you end up at the same place regardless and it is purely cognitive. To me I align more with David’s.
Plus if there is any Temple in this life time (which I think the whole point of the BOC v BOL argument so people, ‘don’t get deceived’ and I feel centers around the thought process of ‘don’t go to the Temple because it’s false’) just don’t go lol…. Or better yet, the first person that says they are the Messiah, isn’t. Also the anticipation of the future event of being deceived or not being deceived would seem as it’s a Greek thought process. Our concerns should be lying here in the now of what we can do to build God’s kingdom and doing as many mitzvot’s as possible to build. We’re here for a reason and it’s not to be hiding under a rock or just learning cognitive things but rather we are suppose to be out there getting it done. You can just as easily spiritualize Johns visions with the Temple; it doesn’t have to be a physical one it could be a false temple in the spiritual sense too ie we are temples, you know what I mean? So having a belief that has that undertone to it and that’s why it was formed (not sure if it was or wasn’t just spitting it out of as a hypothetical) would be taking it very literal and also to me would be a Greek one. Thanks for the share Tanya, I hope that others read it as well.
Derek, there is a YouTube video of Caleb Hegg and Rob Vanhoff of TorahResources Radio talking about David Perry’s book Covenant’s of Promise. Apparently that’s where the ideas you asked about are coming from. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIjbjXnyF8A
Thanks, I appreciate it gonna check it out.
Hey Derek, Interesting comments. What i have ‘heard’ is that when Paul was talking about the ‘end of the law’ he was talking about the rabbinical law, which had no bearing on Torah, but was in addition to Torah, as in the Oral Traditions.
That was one aspect of it, anyway, and one must know the context of his conversation to discern which ‘end of the law’ he was referring. Of which i was not schooled enough to discern.
I’ve heard the rabbinical law argument as well. The problem I have that one is that Paul describes himself as “I am a Pharisee amongst Pharisee” which my impression is that they did follow Talmudic things. But it could also mean nothing to that degree because there was something like 20+ secs of Pharisee’s all doing their own thing (again my impression).
Plus for Yeshua to go up to Pharisee’s rabbi and rebuke, my impression is that He too had to be a Pharisee’s and they wouldn’t let just a ‘nobody’ do it or the popular belief that He was a karaite Jew. Again from what I’ve read my impression is Pharisee’s would have looked oddly amongst a Karatite trying to rebuke them. Plus the teachings that are popular in the N.T that people quote a lot, surprisingly Yeshua is quoting Talmudic things. Check it out they are listed here: http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3a.htm . I think that people have this impression that ALL oral law was bad, but there was good enough things in it for Yeshua to quote. Beyond that Paul and Yeshua have the tone of Hillel on things.
I guess where I’m going with it is I’ve heard the argument but as time has passed, I feel less comfortable saying that it’s what happened. But my opinion is just that, I’m sure Skip will add more clarification as time goes by. I don’t have some answer though of what did happen and what law they were talking about. I’m interested to hear what Skip has to say. And thank you for responding Barbara – I do appreciate it.
Oh dear….don’t be smashing one of my favorite sacred cows by telling me Messiah quoted the Talmud, a book i believe to be thoroughly occultic and simultaneously informative. AND you say Messiah was possibly a pharisee…and NOT a Karate…all in one paragraph?? I can’t take it!
Actually, you plopped a lot of information in such an off handed way i’m embarrassed to say i have stew about it for a moment while i unwind it all. Thanks for giving me something to think about other then my current life challenge(S).
oh. my. gosh. i upgraded my computer OS and can’t figure out the autocorrect, driving me NUTS!
Karate should read “Karaite” sorry.
Sorry! Bob Gorelik (a good friend of Skip http://eshavbooks.org/ ) has an outstanding teaching on the Book of Hebrews and it’s jaw dropping with how much thought in that book is driven by the Talmud. I mean I’m talking the writer had the Talmud on his mind the night before or something; jaw dropping. To your original point, I started with the Karaite thought process and it could be right too, but I don’t see why He would even be familiar with the Talmud if he was Karaite since that is one of the separating things with Karaites. But then again, not an expert and I still have a lot to learn.
heh. what i need, another jaw dropping teaching to listen to. I’m slugging through Skip’s 23 part expose on Galations right now. I’ve started it a number of times and always have gotten sidetracked by his World View or Biblical Leadership ones. I’ve listened to those any number of times, but finally decided to buckle down and stick w/Galations to the end.
For those who want to while away several hours, you want to get on the Jerusalem Post site and find David Turner’s site and read his post on Christianity and Judaism. There is much information about Paul and about early church fathers. I am not sure how credible any of the post are, but they are interesting in light of the teachings here by Skip.