Pick and Choose
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.” John 10:1 NASB
Enter by the door – This is the introduction to the parable of the good shepherd. Since it is the introduction, it should set the stage for the rest of the parable. Unfortunately, we have a tendency to focus on the rest of the story: the love of the shepherd for the one lost sheep. But the parable starts with this warning. It’s all about the door.
Since we grew up in the world of Christian thinking, we suppose that the door must be the proper acceptance of Yeshua as the Son of God, Savior of the world. We think that those who try to come in by some other means (like all those pagans) are thieves and robbers. They pervert the true faith. They try to get into the Kingdom without going through the real door, the Savior. We remember the verse, “I am the way, the truth and the life,” and we suppose that the door must be Yeshua himself. In other words, we turn this warning into an evangelical proof-text.
But what if we read this text a different way? What if the “door” is not the savior of the world but rather the discipline of God’s instructions for living? Isn’t that what Yeshua says in John 14:15: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”? What if the “door” is about commandments, not saviors? The rest of the parable is about hearing the voice of the shepherd, but doesn’t that imply that the sheep who hear his voice do what he tells them to do. Isn’t the “good shepherd” the one who gives proper instruction?
If this is the case, then the thief and the robber are those who attempt to enter the Kingdom without following the instructions. And if this is true, then virtually all Christian theology is theft and robbery. Why? Because it teaches that Torah isn’t necessary. As a result of Christianity’s adaptation of Greco-Roman thought, Christian faith is essentially replacement theology, that is, replacing the Jewish way of life with a new way of life. This is robbery. It steals true instruction from the people. It robs them of life.
Pick and choose. That’s what Moses says. It seems that Yeshua says the same thing. We are assured that he lived his life according to Torah. Why would we think we can enter the Kingdom any other way? But, of course, thieves and robbers accomplish their objectives with the utmost skill. We don’t know what we are missing until after it is already gone.
Topical Index: enter by the door, thief, robber, replacement theology, John 10:1
Skip, please could you help me with this? I have recently returned from my first visit to Israel. It was the most wonderful but most challenging time of my life. But more than anything I have come back so confused – we met with several people who have given up good careers in the USA to live and rebuild Judea and Samaria – according to the word of HaShem and out of love for Him. They face danger every day, but their love and faith overcome it all. I met others too, in Jerusalem, whose love for HaShem an His Word puts most of us to shame. So I have come back agonising over how these dear, inspirational people can be ‘lost’ because they don’t yet recognise Yeshua. The verse you site is among many which have seemed to tell me that belief in Yeshua is the only way – but I would so love to think I am wrong about that. Could you clarify any more?
Skip, unfortunately, replacement theology is as old as the Tower of Babel. Yeshua had a terrible time with it. Faith has always been essential, and you find it all over the OT, as the Faith Chapter reminds us, but false religion (replacement theology, all) can be recognized by its signature, which will, every bit of it, be versions of working your way to heaven – or nirvana – or perfection – or whatever – no faith required. The Jews of Yeshua’s time were thoroughly infected with the popular replacement theology of the day, as seen by the numerous times they sought to ‘correct’ Him as He and His disciples fed themselves in grain fields on the Sabbath and healed, etc., for example. Yeshua was not introducing a new way: He was just placing Torah back into its original setting, yet we see today people trying to say that He was ‘replacing’ Torah! This is classic bait-and-switch.
John wrote his epistle and letters late in his life, and we can see that he wrote them to combat the popular replacement theologies of his day, which are identical to those of today, by the way. We can see him wrestle with gnosticism, which claims that the deeds of the body do not matter (and which the churches of today are slap full of). In the dialectic, once you fall for one side, you are then set up to fall for the corresponding one. The Jews who were working their way would eventually grow tired, and then be vulnerable to gnosticism and its variants, which taught that works do not matter. See the problem? The real problem is falling for the dialectic in the first place.
Lies are all versions of the truth, with error mixed in, with the best lies being those that are 99.99% truth. The dialectic teaches that to combat error, you have to throw the babies out with the bath water, and paint the world in black and white. Most of all, you must pick a side and then fight! Let us not do this! Let us carefully lift the truth back out of the error and join it back with the truth that got splintered off and mixed with the other side of the dialectic. The worst thing we can do is believe that we ‘have’ to fall for one side or the other. The correct answer is “both and neither”, of course.
The first century Jews had already fallen for the dialectic, and so had set the stage for all our subsequent fights. If we step out of the fight, we can see that both faith AND works are required, as James wrote about, too. Today, we need (as John wrote about our day in Revelation) to have BOTH obedience to the commandments of God AND the faith that Yeshua had, too. It takes both. Let us ignore the dialectic as we seek to put back together what the enemy has put asunder.
I ran across a little video on a social media page that speaks to what you’re laying out here and I wanted to encourage you and others with it. It was entitled, “9 points to a successful career” and though it was quite humorous at times, it amazed me that, although secular, it hit so directly on scriptural truths. The last point was this, “don’t be identified by what you oppose, but rather by what you love.” Isn’t this what Yeshua said when He taught, do not resist an evil person (in like manner) but, overcome evil WITH good. Torah obedience without faith is a worshipping of creation instead of the Creator (another one of those false dialectics you pointed out) and sets us up for opposition instead of unity. Obedience in love (to the commandments) displays faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because it shows that we trust His direction for living this life. (even when it seems it’s the wrong road) I would think that a lot of the “problems” we experience as believers would dissolve if we paid a bit more attention to what God, through His word, asks us to stand FOR in the Name of Love. BTW, standing for something automatically endorses our opposition, but the opposition now has context. It’s not just opposition for the sake of opposing, but rather in context of what is good. “do not resist an evil person, but OVERCOME evil with good.
YHWH bless you and keep you….
Robert, if you wrote books I would read them. You get me seeing about ten things to everything you say! I am always grateful.
I have fallen for so much bait for so long. What is it in us that makes us think it is about fighting? That’s not a stand! That’s a fall!
“Overcoming evil with good”. Do you know how hard that is when we have been trained in fracture for so long by being denominated to death? How do we reach out across all those artificial divides with something real, that BOTH sides seem to have always dropped in order to oppose the other? We have been taught to count it a righteous day whenever we just react AGAINST someone else. It is much harder to be able to reach them instead. Gotta keep those sinners down!
If you could reply back with something to say to both sides to get them to lay down arms, I would appreciate it, as I am surrounded with these precious people.
I’m also surrounded by them and I also love them dearly. (even Craig! 🙂 ) I say that in jest because he’s pretty A-typical of the people in my circle of family and friends who zealously contend with me (in love). But, as far as a reply is concerned, what can be said to those who have been locked into contention? It’s the Spirits job to convict both me and them. I will however, say this, one of the things that has convicted me the most is that however I choose to treat another, is the permission I’ve given to others to treat me, (and others) as kind produces after kind. God says He rains on the just and unjust, who am I to do differently?
Laurita, my apologies for not replying in response to your kind words. I’ve got a podcast to conduct this afternoon and am somewhat distracted. I wanted to say this to you, over the years I’ve been blessed here on this site far more than I’ve blessed others. The conversations that occur here, while not diminishing Skips labors in writing the entrees, much less his discussions in regards to them, have been the most enlightening aspect of this site and I thank all of you for your engagement as I’ve learned far more than one would imagine. It’s not just the responses, I’ve often stared myself in the face reading some of the wonderful, in depth and even contentious responses. Nothing that I say here is in any way original, it (hopefully) is what I take from scripture and in large part is fleshed out here in being allowed to interact with some very pure and searching hearts. Again, I thank you, as well as the others for bearing with me, encouraging me and challenging me to be clear and concise, as well as gracious and understanding in both the times I respond and in those times I choose not to. Love y’all
These are the kind of words that bring me to this site day after day after day. I am something of a diletante when it comes to my reading because that is what I want and I can always expect the unexpected here. Thanks so much Skip for what you have birthed in this unique community of ours and to all those so many responders like you and Laurita and Michael etc. etc.
That was just brilliant. Thank you!
As Laurita says, above…”Today, we need (as John wrote about our day in Revelation) to have BOTH obedience to the commandments of God AND the faith that Yeshua had, too. It takes both.”
I agree whole heartedly, Laurita (and have always assumed that Skip does as well…??)
A. W. Tozer, the great theologian of the “common man” in the previous era, once noted: “To escape the error of salvation by works; we have fallen into the opposite error of salvation without obedience.” And yet the denomination that he belonged, Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA), never sought, bought or taught Torah obedience as we (or most Jews) would define it. Thus it seems to have us ask the question: obedience to Who or What? Which is the most important: Torah or Yeshua. And it is precisely here that we fall into this dialectical dilemma Laurita warns us against. Caught in this trap some Christian denominations scream Sola Scriptura while another group shouts ‘Jesus Only’. We boast both Torah and Yeshua, while the world vehemently decries: Neither Torah or Yeshua. The whole world: Jewish/ Gentile; Believer/Unbeliever; Greek/ Hebrew; Barbarian/ Scythian; Slave/ Free are both noisy/quiet; clean/unclean; divided/ united; bound/free; right/ wrong; dead/ alive and He loves it, us and them.
In fact, in this passage, Messiah, Himself, even said He is the gate (door) and coming in through Him is about salvation, though, yes, He does also make inference of obeying His instructions.
“So Yeshua said again, ‘Amen, amen I tell you, I AM THE GATE for the sheep. All those who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I AM THE GATE! If anyone comes in through Me, he will be saved. He will come and go and find pasture.'” [Joh 10:7-9]
He says anyone coming into the sheepfold through Him will be saved, and the one who does will then come and go and find pasture. How? By listening to His voice and following after Him, obeying His instructions, those written and those given by the Spirit, which are one, even as YHWH is one.
First, there is the coming in through Him and being saved by faith, and then the coming and going, and finding pasture, being nourished, fed, through eating His word, His truth, His instructions. He is both the gate (door) and the Good Shepherd, allowed in by the gatekeeper, Whom I would say is the Father, the One Who has given the authority for Yeshua to be the Good Shepherd. However, those who have sought to shepherd His sheep without going through the Messiah, even trying to lead the sheep by trying to get them to obey the Torah, the written instructions without coming in through Messiah (the letter of the law), are hirelings.
In that sense, even the “Jewish way of life”, which can be a life of living according to Torah but without going through the Messiah, is also essentially replacement theology – replacing Messiah with an anti-messiah torah faith. I believe there were and there still are “Jews” who have come in through Messiah, in a sense, even before Messiah came and even before He comes again. But it’s not only Christians who reject Torah that promote “replacement theology”, but also “Jews” who reject Messiah that promote “replacement theology”.
There were those who did, in a sense, enter through Messiah even before He came. I think of Simeon as a good example of one of those:
“Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and pious, waiting for the consolation of Israel. The Ruach ha-Kodesh was on him. And it had been revealed to him by the Ruach ha-Kodesh that he would not die before he had seen the Anointed One of Adonai.” [Luk 2:25-26]
Oh wow!!
For Christ’s sake! ( only what is done for Him will last) Will you ever find Him without going through the Door? Didn’t you just read Job? He was righteous in all his ways and yet…He was still subject to the adversary and had no authority or power against him until He saw the Lord with His own eyes. Luke tells us it is those who have seen Christ that have authority over the angelic realm which would include all evil.
The Torah will only get you to the base of Mt Sinai- You are leading everyone to the base of Mt Sinai so they can die in the wilderness? How do you get to Mt Zion from where you stand?
Abigail thank you for the frank and honest response. Here is how I understand it. The ten commandments will take us all the way to the top… The problem is all the rest man added that bind us and keep us from entering by other means. These added rules or dogmas or religions stop us from doing God’s will and keep us running in religious circles. One of the NT author wrote we must stop preaching and teaching repentance and baptism and start being… If this makes any sense…
Thank you seeker-
Please remember Skip in your prayers sincerely ask for Him to have a living encounter with the one He talks about like He is not there.
It’s nice to know that you care about me so much. But it’s not about a living encounter as much as it is about trying to sort out what my cultural taught in opposition to a Jewish view of the Jewish text. So much of what we read in the text seems to me to be nothing more than our particular cultural overlay, our paradigm in control, and what I want to do is get to the place where I see the text as the original authors did. That is a very difficult task for me. I am very much aware of the layers of Christian thinking that have been added to the text over thousands of years. So I struggle to find some way to hear what Yeshua actually said, what Paul really meant, what John was really thinking. And in the process, the Savior I knew as a child is no longer the same man I find in the text today. So – thanks for your prayers.
No-one has responded to my question about the position of the Jewish people who love HaShem and His written Word, but don’t yet recognise Yeshua as their Messiah – I understand it is difficult but, Skip, you seem to be saying that verses which seem to say that belief in Yeshua is the only way may have been misunderstood. Am I reading you wrong? I want to believe that I am reading you right – but am grappling with so many verses which seem to say the exact opposite.
In my book, Cross Word Puzzles, I try to answer your question from the perspective of the first century. You might enjoy reading that. Briefly, the issue is one of meta-interpretation, that is, is Yeshua’s claim a personal REQUIREMENT or is it an ETERNAL truth regardless of personal acknowledgment. Let me put it this way. Is Yeshua the door, or the life, or the truth, or whatever even if I don’t recognize him? And if I choose to follow the God of Israel, but I don’t see Yeshua as His son, does that mean that I have a relationship with YHVH through the Messiah even if I don’t know that? Or do we take the verse as if it were a theological REQUISITE, a demand that I must have the right words about Yeshua in order to be saved (as evangelicals tend to)? And if this option is the case, then what does that mean for all those who served YHVH but never knew anything about Yeshua?
Skip I find your comments helpful! In a discussion with an Orthodox Jew concerning Messiah, I stated my belief that Yeshua of Nazareth was, and is, the Messiah of Israel; this will be obvious when he arrives. The reaction was interesting. My friend said that if Yeshua was in fact Messiah then he would follow him. At this point in my mind my evangelical upbringing kicked in. “But it would then be too late” I thought. You must accept him BEFORE he returns, otherwise there is no hope for you. Upon reflection however this position seems erroneous. Surely Yeshua is Messiah whether or not he is accepted in advance. It is not up to people to vote him into office. His status depends on what he accomplished, not on our reaction. I know a number of Jews who love Torah and seriously seek to honor the God of Israel. I believe they have in large measure been presented with an incorrect Messiah. They have rejected the deity of Messiah as idolatry. At some point in time “all Israel will be saved” and Yeshua will be their (and our) king.
I am with you. The evangelical exposition of Scripture is just too self-serving, given that the text must first be understood as JEWISH literature. All this nonsense about the divinity of the Messiah is third and fourth century theological philosophy borrowed from the Greeks and incompatible with Jewish monotheism. To imagine that a fully Torah observant Jew in the first century would go around claiming to be God is the epitome of misunderstanding the text. In fact, the linguistic categories needed to express this accretion were not in place until the fourth century. Read Kegan Chandler’s The God of Jesus.
I thought Chandlers’s book was excellent and very enlightening.
Thank you Skip. I bought Cross Word Puzzles and read it a couple of years back – will now read it again with much more attention to this question.
So what is your purpose once you get to the place where you “see the text as the original author did”,
Without filters of any kind that might alter your perspective and bring you to a foundational paradigm that might crumble underneath you like when you were a child?
I have been watching your reasonings take you around and around and around, but never through the door.
I see a man who is trying to build his own foundation that will not let him down, a foundation that will intellectually justify him making a decision that he can explain.
The wonderful thing is, Jesus does not need your foundation to stand on-He has built His own.
Righteousness and Justice are the foundations of His throne.
Abraham believed and it was counted as righteousness. (because Abraham believed what he could not see or understand or explain) he heard His voice, the rest is history.
So the original Author is the Author and finisher of our faith.
The men of faith all had encounters which were their foundations that did not fail. The search for a city who’s foundations are not made with hands.
The door standing open is your invitation-
The door He is knocking on is your choice.
Come and meet the original Author Skip, He alone is worthy. His beauty alone is worth your whole existence.
How difficult are you going to make this?
Everyone gets a thumbs up for being human.
Abigail, I do not see Yeshua of 2000 years ago as an individual but a lifestyle revealing YHVH will…
I accept there was an individual doing the things you read of this is in line with the tasking of all called or referred to as The man of God in scriptures.
Abigail, have you read any of Skip’s earlier writings?
I have read several of his books and heard many of his teachings. I have also read many of the references and purchased their materials and read them. Would you like to know what else I’ve read?
Abigail, It is easy to judge another person by their words, especially when all we have are their written words alone. Their spoken words carry much more weight and their physical presence reveals even more of their true self. It is difficult to understand the person behind the words when all we have are their words, but still we must try. To understand the person and not just the words takes great grace, a lot of love and persistent patience. If we in the West can get 3,500 years of written Torah ‘wrong’ because our minds have been brainwashed by subtle Greco Roman paradigms and the anti semitism of the Church Fathers, etc. isn’t it possible we can get a ‘wrong’ view (or at least limited view) of Skip’s inner man from only a few months or years of reading his books and daily posts? 5 years ago I was one of those critical of Skip’s relationship with YHWH based on my interpretation of his written words. I would sometimes voice my concerns and frustrations to the community in the comments. I am now sorry I did. (If I didn’t ask then, I ask now: Please forgive me Skip. I was wrong to judge you). For the record I am not Skips defense attorney, nor his PR person. I still have some “issues” with some of his positions and beliefs, with many questions not only unanswered, but unaddressed. And that is OK. I didnt marry him and I don’t bow to him, but I can and do learn from him daily. I still haven’t met Skip face to face, but I am looking forward to the opportunity and you can be assured I won’t be looking for hidden evidence of his “lack of a personal relationship with Jesus” in our conversations and I won’t make attempts to convert him, baptize him or shoot him. If anything I suspect I will be finding evidence of his relationship with YHWH though our personal interaction and his actions. When we are finally judged by YHWH it will be mainly on the basis of the progress of our works, not just on the proficiency of our words. Please, I implore you: be gentle, be kind, be open and perhaps be less in the role of judge and more in the role of friend, intercessor and sister. Your elder(?) Brother in Messiah, Michael
I doubt if you’re my older brother
Dear Abigail,
Thank you! I feel I finally know one thing about you, and that makes me glad. Now, I would like to know more, of course. Who are you? Is your name really Abigail? (I hope so) Are you really as lonely as you seem? (I hope not, but if you are, I would like to welcome you). Are you actually a woman? (I can’t tell yet! Help!)
You remind me of my past. When my family’s world blew apart, I instantly felt ‘outside’ but the reaction of our church did not fix the problem. When you are on the outside looking in, you can see some things you could not while you were still ‘in’. The posturing and platitudes that everybody had been so carefully taught did not work so well in real life. In fact, most of it was just thinly veiled and repackaged flesh, with a smear of ‘christianese’.
Looking back, it reminds me of something my late mama found in the early days of the internet and printed off. It was a rather sordid little piece entitled “Safe Faxing”, I think. What Skip said recently about how far sex is from intimacy reminded me of it. But remembering the evangelistic techniques everybody was taught reminds me of it, too, unfortunately. The way of the world is exemplified by ‘safe’ mutual, one-way encounters. Its how the world runs, but the church has been taught this, too. This makes me so sad.
There is nothing so simultaneously rude or brutal as a person who withholds themselves from another person, but that’s all the fractured flesh knows to do. To compensate for that, the world also practices, I have noticed, “trangressing”; or, boundary crossing. We invade each other’s sovereignty – in the name of love, of course. We seek to become each others’ holy spirits while at the same time we ‘punish’ each other by withholding intimacy and vulnerability, for we know instinctively that that is the worst thing we can do. Why? Because that is what we need most. And now we can go to church to learn all this! No wonder we suffer so from loneliness!
Skip teaches context. We are called to witness, which is also about context: the context of our own lives. Our witness is as good as our ability to be intimate and vulnerable. So, in the interests of context, I would like to gently suggest that your witness (which we really do need!) is going to be as valid as your efforts to share yourself – your context. Instead of standing safely on a little dry shore and throwing things – even good things – at Skip, who you seem to be carefully treating as some infected alien, like I am sure you have been taught to do, perhaps you could see that he would be more impressed if you shared the context of your personal life. Speaking for myself, and perhaps others in this community, I would hope you could also broaden your heart to include us in your focus, too. Believe it or not, we need you, too!
So, Abigail, hi! Nice to know one thing about you, and I am looking forward to knowing more!
Love, Laurita
Laurita, you have a regal, diplomatic way of bringing simplicity to the complex which I very much appreciate. Long may you reign and rain upon us all. Love and shalom.
It sounds like you have me pretty well figured out? Good for you
Actions do speak pretty loudly, Abigail. My hearing is not that good.
I wish I did know you better, personally, though. I would hope that you would wish to join us.
If you wish to have weight in a community, however, you do need to try to be a part of that community.
I would hope that you would wish to join us. The above was an invitation to let us get to know you. I am sure there are good reasons for your actions, but without context or explanation, we are only left with many guesses.
I am tempted not to reply since it appears to me that you have decided I don’t fit your carefully defined requirements for relationship. There’s not much point in taking to someone who has already made up her mind. But, just so you have some additional material to work with, while I do try to understand the text in its original context, I have discovered that the text without the experience is just as lifeless as rules that are forced upon you. The relationship does not depend on the rules. The rules, however, bring the relationship to life. If I hold a map but don’t know which way is North, the map is useless. But as soon as I have the proper orientation, the map is essential.
Let me also say that the use of religious phrases (e.g. knocking at the door) as if they were commonly understood is a paradigmatic approach to more serious questions. It really doesn’t provide answers. It trades on the belief that these spiritual acronyms are interpreted the same by everyone. If you really want to communicate, perhaps you might try abandoning common evangelical shortcuts and explaining exactly what these idiomatic expressions mean.
Finally, foundations. Do you really think, after 6000+ studies, I am trying to build my OWN foundation? Frankly, the more I investigate the less FOUNDATION I find. Cultural and history have tremendous influence on our supposed “rock-solid” beliefs. Once we begin to truly examine them, I find that we are pushed more and more toward CHOICE rather than CERTAINTY. I would say that today I have less confidence in “foundation” ideas than I have ever had. But I don’t think that has has any detrimental effect on the relationship. Perhaps the relationship was never about knowing all the right things. including all those idioms you so easily employ.
I agree, honestly, I agree
Abigail. Skip had a nice discussion on Job which explains how all is dependent on YHVH first of all and secondly on how far we could struggle to resolve without harming the soul…
John 8:24: I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am ____ you will die in your sins.
John 8:28: When you lift up [crucify] the Son of Man, then you will know that I am ____…
John 10:1-2: Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
John 10:7: Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
John 10:9-: I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture…I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep…and I lay down My life for the sheep.
Clearly, as part of Yeshua’s mission He was to die. Just as clearly belief “that I [Jesus] am…” is a requirement to alleviate dying ‘in your sins’ (cf. 12:44-50). Yeshua Himself is “the door” for salvation, and this appears to be intrinsically tied to His very necessary death “for the sheep”. If Yeshua merely came to illustrate how to live a life in complete obedience to Torah, why was it a requirement that He die “for the sheep” (10:17-18; cf. 3:14-15; 12:31-36)? How does this fact relate to Yeshua being the “gate for the sheep”?
Craig I am going to try answer…
Yeshua or Ten Commandments in action are everything you refer to.
Dying on the cross was not to redeem those who believed but to open the eyes of those who refused to accept. And then to redeem the already departed…
Seeker,
Thanks for answer. I appreciate the way you answer, even if I don’t agree.
I must ask: Why did the already departed need Messiah to die in order to redeem them when they already had Torah for this very purpose? Wasn’t that enough? “Refused to accept” what exactly? Those who ‘believed in Yeshua’, what exactly did they believe?
What was the primary role of the Messiah? To correct the wayward Pharisees or to bring the Torah to the Gentiles?
Neither; but the latter is part of His role as Messiah. John 10:16: “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd” (NASB). Who are those “not of this fold”? First, who are “of this fold”? See Ephesians 2:11-18.
I agree with neither because I think is was both. Correct Torah for ALL!
Did Messiah succeed in ‘correcting the wayward Pharisees’, aka, in Yeshua’s words (paraphrased) ‘children of the Devil’?
That wasnt his role. He didnt belong to the Dept . Of Correctional Services.
LOL! I like your humor on that one.
But doesn’t Jesus call Himself the “door” in John 10:7?
Yes, He does. See my comment above @ November 27, 2017 7:49 am
And if this is true, then virtually all Christian theology is theft and robbery. Why? Because it teaches that Torah isn’t necessary. While some certainly do this very thing (antinomianists), this is not the basis for historic Christianity as a whole. James even mentions it specifically in his epistle (2:8-13). See theopedia dot com /antinomianism
You are historically correct, Craig. “Historic Christianity” did indeed attempt to subscribe to this in the past (not that anyone can say they really ever succeeded). Nowadays, however, everybody seems to be trying to divorce themselves from that past as fast as they can go. The Reformation tried, but failed, to get us out back out of Babylon, but our Waterloo on that derailed us before we even got started good when we failed to win the Sola Scriptura argument way back at the Council of Trent, when the Reformers refused to embrace the Sabbath.
You cannot have it both ways, for Sola Scriptura is only going to hold if you do, in fact, embrace applicable Torah, of which the original Ten Commandments (not the altered ones found in the official catechism of the RMC which almost the whole of Protestantism has always practiced) are the heart. Those Commandments were NEVER followed by almost all those who claimed to be Sola Scriptura. Sad.
The Ten Commandments never went away; however, the understanding of their application changed with the Incarnation and death of Messiah Jesus. As regards the Sabbath, I’ve tried to look at all sides, and I’ve not yet decided to what extent, if any, it has changed. But of one thing I’m sure, Yeshua’s death brought with it a better covenant (kreittonos diathēkēs–Hebrews 7:22), “for the law made nothing perfect” (Hebrews 7:19).
We think the Hebrews writer was making up something ‘new’, but that is something that Skip calls
reading into the text”. The writer was repeating what had always been the case. The law NEVER made anything “perfect”. That notion came in with the Greek ideas of perfection, surely, which he was having to correct. We need to investigate this a whole lot more, instead of just assuming.
The “better covenant”, in my way of understanding, had to do with POWER to obey the original covenant, which was the one that was agreed upon at Sinai – the Ten, specifically. The next covenant was agreed upon after they broke the first one, and the next one was based upon the additional clarification that was given to Moses up on the Mount after the golden calf incident. The “better covenant” refers back to the original one they agreed to, with an additional promise, and that promise is the power to actually be able to obey, which was the gift of the Holy Spirit Who enacts the promised righteousness of Yeshua in us. Mysterious, for sure, but not ‘new’. This is not replacement. This is empowerment. This is the power of the Holy Spirit to enable us to obey, not ‘permission’ to disobey.
The only historical change to the Ten was the change made by the RCC. The New Testament itself lists all Ten as still being viable, and those verses are readily found. The RCC themselves challenge anybody to show any other change, and if anybody should know, it would be them.
It’s an interesting thing how a particular subject keeps presenting itself at certain times. For me, this has been one of those subjects. I keep hearing this concerning the “new”, “better” vs. the “old” and how everyone seems to read it as though it were the “terms” of the covenant that were at fault. Heb. 8:8-10 “finding fault with them”…..or more literally, “fault, the reason being, them”…….In other words, it’s not the terms of the covenant that is under question but rather those it was given to. How is it rectified? by writing the law on their hearts. (same terms) Returning to the section of scripture you first addressed, it says the Yeshua was the initiator of that “new” covenant. Just something to consider, it “fleshes out” well when read accordingly.
Craig
Thank you for all your thoughtful and accurate answers.
In response to your answer.
Saving the lost sheep was about those alive being guided by the incorrect teachings. Cursing those teaching the wrong identifying the liars is part of revealing the truth. Baptising those in the dead region is informing them of the incorrect knowledge they had.
After uniting these he ascended. The 10 remaining apostles kept redeeming those alive. Then the right wing intervention the redeeming of the gentiles. Not revealed till after the fulfilling of Yeshau role.
As for the new covenant it was but summarising the 10 in 1. Supporting love…Laurita help me here love is not only about helping others, it is about appreciating the differences so that we can grow through these in unity without pointing fingers… Just my 2 cents.
I used to hear in church occasionally talk about the New Covenant, which is in fact a better covenant. And I still hear people mention it sometimes today. But, in both cases, when asked to describe it, one usually receives a vague “spiritual” answer. In my experience, many Christians seem only to know that Jesus somehow initiated it.
To my knowledge there are only two prophetic passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that speak directly about this covenant, made with the people of Israel and Judah: Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:22-38. Here are a couple verses from these passages that I hope are relevant to the discussion:
“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you; I will take the stony heart out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit inside you and cause you to live by my laws, respect my rulings and obey them. (Ezekiel 36:26-27 – CJB).
““For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Isra’el after those days,” says Adonai: “I will put my Torah within them and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people. (Jeremiah 31:32 – CJB).
Combining the two passages indicates that the purpose of “a new heart” and the Spirit in the New Covenant is to bring about Torah observance or obedience in God’s people.
A New Testament passage, which I believe speaks to the same idea, even though it doesn’t actually refer to the covenant is:
“For God’s grace, which brings deliverance, has appeared to all people. It teaches us to renounce godlessness and worldly pleasures, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives now, in this age; while continuing to expect the blessed fulfillment of our certain hope, which is the appearing of the Sh’khinah of our great God and the appearing of our Deliverer, Yeshua the Messiah. He gave himself up on our behalf in order to free us from all violation of Torah and purify for himself a people who would be his own, eager to do good. (Titus 2:11-14 – CJB).
This also brings to mind some comments I read recently in another thread that mentioned this passage:
“This is when perseverance is needed on the part of God’s people, those who observe his commands and exercise Yeshua’s faithfulness”. (Revelation 14:12 – CJB)
Yet I encounter many people who claim to be “filled with the Spirit” who have little knowledge of or experience with the Torah. Of course there are also those who have knowledge of Torah and have no relationship to God’s Spirit or His Messiah. The Scriptures above and many others show that the faith (or I believe more accurately the faithfulness) of Yeshua which involves the influence of God’s Spirit to produce Torah obedience is all required for followers of Messiah. Any attempt to separate these elements, or worse, to place them in opposition to each other is, in my view, in error.
Mel, I was thinking about this again. The more modern versions of Rev. 14:12 seem to add to the confusion because they interpret the second part in ways that put the burden of faith on the person. I read “faith in Jesus”; faithful to Jesus”, etc. In practice, this can get interpreted to mean that all we ‘need’ is to have cognitive assent to acceptance of “Jesus in my heart”, etc. This understanding, however, can result in the non-compliant staying complacent in their disobedience (because they ‘believe in Jesus’), but also the discouraged and victimized being further brutalized by accusations that they “just don’t have enough faith”! Yikes!
The CJB, however, along with the KJV, gives an entirely different understanding.
Faith is not cognitively self-generated, as is modernly taught; we are specifically told that it is a gift of God. It is not my faith in Him that keeps me going: but as the interpretation in the CJB you quoted says, it is HIS faith in me, and to me, and through me – “lest I should boast”. Halleluah!
I wonder what the view would be concerning the life and doctrine of Christ if Revelations was documented as the first book in the New Testament…
Rather than respond to each individual comment, I’ll write this one response. No one comes to the Father except through the Son; no one comes to the Son unless the Father enables Him. The New Covenant is one that renders the old sacrificial system moot. No longer is the blood of animals, etc. required to atone for individual or collective sin. Christ’s sacrifice, His blood, made a once-for-all Atonement for all. The only requirement in receiving this Atonement is individual belief, individual faith in the name/Person of Christ/Messiah, this faith/belief not our own, but emanating from the Father.
This belief brings the Holy Spirit indwelling, Who provides the means by which to obey God’s laws, rather than live by the desires of “the flesh”. Yet as believers one can still choose (and choose poorly) to live by “the flesh”, rather than by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26). But s/he who remains firm shall have eternal life.
Perfect Torah obedience is the goal; however, believers fail in that endeavor (1 John 1:5-2:2; Rev 2:5). The Spirit brings about recognition of these failures, and to remain in fellowship with God, the believer must repent (James 5:15-20, e.g.): “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).
I’m not sure why you would say that the new covenant renders the “sacrificial” system moot. The blood of bulls and goats has NEVER brought forgiveness. That’s a prerogative of God, and God alone. David is a case in point, there was NO sacrifice given, that covered his sin, yet God forgave him. The sacrificial system was taken away in the Babylonian exile, it was restored later. That didn’t render it as moot, only unavailable to be exercised. The prophets speak of a time when the Messiah will again engage in the sacrificial system, and that when the “Levitical” system is restored, some gentiles will be ministering along with the Levites. Some things to consider, why is the Messiah engaging in sacrifice if His sacrifice rendered it moot? What’s the purpose for sacrifice if not to cover or forgive sin if God forgives sin by His own choice? Some of the question that need to be dealt with before we can really engage this matter in its fullness.
Of course, that all depends on the definition of the term moot and how you are using it here. ?
See Hebrews 7:26 – 8:6.
That doesn’t tell me anything pertinent to the discussion Craig. Again, why is the Messiah doing sacrifices in the future? I understand that it’s a better covenant (though we may disagree over the details) the question is why, is the sacrificial system reintroduced. And why is the Messiah, whom you claim has made the sacrificial system moot, engaging in it? I’m not attempting to counter you here, I’m only asking questions and observations that are spelled out clearly. The question is if our “theology” is capable of integrating what the scriptures so clearly point out. That’s a question for both of us.
You must be speaking of Ezekiel. I don’t know how that fits eschatologically, but the Scriptures I referenced above indicate quite clearly: (1) there was a sacrificial system in which priests offered sacrifices for their own sins and the sins of others; (2) Yeshua, when He offered Himself, did it once for all; (3) this is a new covenant, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second” (Heb 8:7, NASB). Then, take note of Heb 9:9-10.
I’ve tried at various times to sort out eschatology, to no avail. Other, smarter individuals have tried, and many others disagree. As far as I see it, eschatology has no bearing on these Scriptures in the book of Hebrews. In other words, whatever that may mean in the future, for now Christ’s/Messiah’s sacrifice has rendered the old sacrificial system moot.
I guess the only problem is that it doesn’t say that. Why is it that we read it as an “elimination” of the previous, or in contrast? Just like the part about the law given by Moses, but grace by the Messiah. Is that a contrast or a supplement? The original post had to do with the new covenant and it’s terms vs mode of application. Don’t dismiss that, as it is extremely clear. What you make of the other statements has to be in line with the rest, never mind the original covenant. Ask yourself the questions. It’s not enough to understand the language, the history is also important.
If you read my first comment in this particular thread, you’ll see that I don’t dichotomize the first and latter part of John 1:17.
Yeshua’s death was not happenstance, it was part of His mission. This must be factored in here. See my earlier comment @ November 27, 2017 7:49 am. And Yeshua prophesied the 70AD destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24:1-2/Luke 19:44.
Not to mention application, Robert. HOW do we enter into this covenant, and stay there, today, in action? We might need to look at that specifically, I think.
I am no expert on this subject, for sure, but so much has been overlooked or misrepresented, I have had to go and start over looking at the whole covenant thing. This is what I think I see so far: sacrifice (“works”) has never been the FOUNDATION/condition of covenant. People have been trying to ‘add’ that one in all along (we find them trying to – it could be argued that it started with Cain – in both Old and New Testaments), and still are, today. Someone please show me that it was/is EVER ‘our’ end of covenant? That would be all the HEATHEN religions. So much assumed/presumed, here.
The way I see it so far (help, anybody!) the covenants were unilateral to begin with: YHVH swore by Himself, and they were referred to by Him as “My covenant(s)”. They were never dependent upon things like sacrifice by people. For that matter, YHVH “provided himself a lamb”, and that “before the foundation of the world” as Skip points out in Crossword Puzzles. Let’s start there, and then fast forward to today.
If the covenants – on YHVH’s end, anyway – were independent of what people chose/did (or did not), then, then they still are. People did not obey (or sacrifice) as their part, or condition, of their end of the covenant; they obeyed/sacrificed because they were IN covenant. That is what they agreed to at Sinai – and promptly failed to do, as THEY thought they could do it in their own strength and by their own method. but that is not what YHVH had asked them to do! They were the ones who ‘added’ the idea that they could do so! (shades of the Garden) People have always needed help to obey, and the Law written on hearts happens, not because we have complied with ‘our’ end – or much less that He forsook His, which is the most popular teaching today (see how ridiculous and nonsensical it is?) – but because, once again, YHVH swore/promised by Himself that He would provide this Comforter/HelperWriter/Enabler, too. In fact, we CANNOT comply – which is the whole point – unless and until He does. Halleluah!
As far as I can see, the sacrificial system (those famous “types and shadows” that were there to remind folks that a Lamb WAS already/going-to-be provided) was independent of the original (“better”) covenant: in fact were added/”given by angels” AFTER covenant (orally spoken by God Himself in the form of the Ten) was agreed upon/spoken/entered into, even though sacrifices were sometimes included as part of the acceptance ceremonies of covenant (Abraham). Look at Sinai: the people entered into covenant by oral swearing – as did YHVH -, not sacrifice. They were the ones who thought something needed to be added (works!), so they got Aaron to add the golden calf. The sacrificial system – which helped clarify how, and how NOT to do sacrifice – was given to Moses after the people had broken their end of the first one with the golden calf false worship/sacrifice incident.
I sure wish Skip would address the nitty gritty of ancient covenants, as this is what I have teased out, and studied, so far, too. Sure wish we could know more context, here!
I offer some points to ponder. The syntax in Revelation 13:8 allows for one of two renderings. Was the Lamb slain from the world’s foundation, or was the Book of Life written from the foundation? (Check different translations on this.) One could argue that the Book of Life requires the Lamb’s sacrifice; i.e, the Life-Giver (I’ve argued that before). However, look at the near-parallel in Rev 17:8. So, was the Lamb provided before the world’s foundation, or was the Lamb in God’s plan before the world’s foundation? In attempting to determine this, consider that Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac, and this was a type/shadow of Christ’s actual self-sacrifice (or God’s sacrifice of the Lamb). Or is this all dependent upon how one construes the relationship between the eternal realm and the temporal?
Yes, God’s covenants are valid independent of whether we keep them or not. If this is so, the following Scripture provides an answer to what I see as the implicit question: “He who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Matthew 24:13). Does this mean ‘he who lives perfect Torah till the end will be saved’?
Does this mean ‘he who lives perfect Torah till the end will be saved’?
No, but Torah is the guide for standing firm.
Given that No one comes to the Father except through the Son (John 14:6), and no one comes to the Son unless the Father enables Him (John 6:43; 65), can one ‘stand firm to the end’ apart from belief in the name/Person of the Messiah (see John 1:11-12; 20:31)?
If the Torah is the guide for standing firm, was the Messiah and His death really necessary?
Craig Torah was lost for around 700 years… Then miraculous reappeared again. Accurate confirmation of it’s authenticity did not exist at that stage so something had to reform and assist with it’s reintroduction and this life and death may have been needed to move in the right direction… Just my humble view.
But was Torah really lost? Did no one recall the Ten Commandments?
If we are only talking about the ten commandments then I agree these are basic human relation foundations towards man and divine entities… Maybe it was then the emphasis our entity that had to be restored…
Craig I reread this post again and found two distinctive understanding’s of the concept of new and old covenant.
The first is restoration of intent a specific peculiar people which is inscribed directly through the spirit of truth which is the comforter. And that is what we are experiencing the more we discuss probabilities of scriptural understanding. It is not my or your view that pushes the discussion into a specific direction or understanding it is what we do not know that gets us to investigate and this effort is the work we can do. Yeshau said stay in Jerusalem until empowered by the holy spirit. So we keep corresponding until enlightened then we do without considering what will be the best. We just do our humble best…
The second interpretation of the new covenant leans toward a route or process through which all nations are introduced into the peculiar people nation. The process of grace or the prophetic reasoning keeping thoughts and actions somehow in line with the Ten Commandments. Then the Apostleship or rather daily actions revealing the will of YHVH.
Grace is introduction to Torah.
Truth is Torah in action Jesus the Christ. Flesh revealing God’s will in my own words… And this is what keeps saving even in our modern times, not scientific progress as that just reveals the how…
I said guide, not enablement. This kind of debate reminds me of watching an atheist engage in a conversation with a believer, they don’t dismiss God, they dismiss design because they know that design points toward a designer. It’s a fence built for not allowing even the peripheral issues to have credence. Don’t allow even what would seem as the smallest concession toward design or there may be a possibility that the idea of God is validated.
Robert,
This isn’t a matter of me refusing to concede because I’m stubborn. Earlier you wrote: “The original post had to do with the new covenant and it’s terms vs mode of application. Don’t dismiss that, as it is extremely clear.” I don’t agree, and I find the OP inadequate. It fails to take into account the larger context of John 10, as I mentioned earlier @ November 27, 2017 7:49 am (that’s not to mention, the OP conflates John 10’s ‘Parable of the Good Shepherd/the Shepherd and His Flock’ with ‘the Parable of the Lost Sheep’ [Matt 18:12-14/Luke 15:4-7]). Seeker responded but didn’t address why Messiah had to die. George Kramer said it was, in part, for the Gentiles; yet, Rahab, a Gentile, is in the Messiah’s lineage. Even the Abrahamic covenant specifically included non-Jews (which must have included Rahab, at the least). Moreover, there are the Ninevites of the book of Jonah. Why did God send Jonah to preach to Nineveh, and how/why did their repentance cause God to spare the city?
There are 24 occurrences of the word for Savior (sōtēr), and most often they refer to Jesus (others refer to God). Now, given the OP, and the way I understand the basic position of most of those posting here, it will be argued that Yeshua is the Savior (or the gate/door) only inasmuch as He illustrated that we all have the potential to live perfect Torah. But, then this begs all the questions I’ve been asking, perhaps the most important of which are:
-Why was dying intrinsic to Messiah’s mission?
-For what purpose did He die?
If the answer is that Messiah had to die in order for the Spirit to come, then I must ask what happens when we all inevitably sin (and we all do)? Obviously, this means we’ve fallen short of the Messiah’s example. In other words, given that we all still sin, even with the Spirit, how does Yeshua’s example as One who lived perfect Torah really help us? It could be argued that our penalty should be even more severe when we sin with the ‘indwelt’ Spirit.
Good morning Craig, quite a lot said there, I’ll attempt to respond appropriately point by point but I’m bound to miss something and hopefully we can get back to it if we continue. So, firstly, it isn’t a matter of stubbornness that is an issue (and I apologize if that’s how it came across) but rather a mindset that’s being defended which causes blocks in our thinking. (happens to me all the time)
Whether or not you agree with the statement that it’s clear concerning terms vs. application, all I can say is to go read it. Leave out all the additional theological meanderings and read what the prophet says and what the writer of Hebrews says and do it in the context given. Not a whole lot of wiggle room there.
John’s gospel needs to be read a bit more carefully than it is by most, I’m quite sure that you’re up to the task. Most of the issues have to do with confusing the context of one passage with another, but that has more to do with training than with what’s actually written.
You’re correct on your analysis concerning gentiles, torah obedience and the other things you mentioned, although they are all part of the peripheral issues concerning the death of the Messiah, and I don’t think anyone here is of the mind that “perfect” torah obedience has ever been or will ever be the issue. How bout, “conquering” (the power of) sin and death? Totally, in all it’s aspects and manifestations, and finally.
Hope that helps.
BTW, I know this response is vague in a number of areas however, this is my somewhat feeble attempt at “not” composing a dissertation in regards to these issues. Perhaps we need to communicate somewhere else besides Skip’s space.
Robert,
I don’t understand why this discussion would need to go somewhere else. It seems I’m not the only one here who isn’t ‘understanding’ this. I’m glad your subsequent comment stated that the first comment was vague, as that’s what I thought. My one main question cannot be that difficult to answer: for what reason was it necessary that Messiah die in order to accomplish His mission?
You suggested I read the OP. I did. Three times. And it left me without answers, because it doesn’t provide any. By “larger context” of John 10, I’m referring to the fact that Messiah must die. This is what’s not addressed, and this is integral, if not central, to Yeshua’s mission. I can’t imagine you’d need to write a dissertation in order to explain this. You’ve already stated I got most things correct in my most recent comment. That means we’re getting somewhere, right?
But if no one is expected to live perfect Torah, then why was it necessary that Yeshua live perfect Torah? As I just pointed out on the Getting It Right thread, Yeshua was circumcised, yet the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) decided that circumcision was not necessary for the Gentiles.
Off topic, so some other things just to ponder: is it necessary to obey the commandment to not wear two different types of clothing fabric? If not, why not? Which part of Torah is it OK to disregard?
BTW, regarding what you wrote about John’s Gospel, I’m currently going through the prologue (1:1-18), as it sets up the rest of the Gospel, including Christology. I’ve completed 1-5. You can see it @ notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com (scroll past my most recent post on Black Friday).
Just a comment (from Rome). Take a look at Kegan Chandler’s chapter on John’s Prologue in The God Of Jesus. I think you will find it a very balanced approach to a Jewish view of John’s words.
I added this a week ago but looks like somehow it didn’t post.
I love your blog – it has been very insightful and helpful. I would love more clarification about your above post. You say,
“But what if we read this text a different way? What if the “door” is not the savior of the world but rather the discipline of God’s instructions for living?”
It feels like you are communicating that this passage does not equate the door to be Jesus but later in this Chapter – John 10:7 Jesus explains the parable and says that He is the door.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and answer for Skip. If everyone who is concerned about Skip saying Yeshua is not the door, the above sentence needs to be read again.
He did not say: “But what if we read this text a different way? What if the “door” isn’t JESUS but rather the discipline of God’s instructions for living?” HE said, “But what if we read this text a different way? What if the “door” is not the savior of the world but rather the discipline of God’s instructions for living?”
In other words THIS PARABLE isn’t about “getting saved” or needing a savior, its about keeping the commands. Yeshua is the Torah manifested in flesh and he said “if you love me keep my commandments.” So in THIS CONTEXT he is the door- the instructions for living, not the Savior of the World. Skip isn’t saying Yeshua exclusively isn’t the door or the Savior. But in modern theological proof-texting using THIS VERSE we make this text exclusively “Yeshua, the Savior” and ignores “Yeshua, the instructions for living/Torah.”
Thanks David.
I am in Rome. Eventually I will get home.