Major misconception: What is legalism and what's not legalism.

[Dan_473]

Ok, when I get off work (and if I can get my phone to work, it's been broken for about a week now), I'll post a picture. I don't even know how to post a picture on here, but i'll try.

The majority of Christians (as you've probably seen on this site), do not believe in wearing them and also some believe it to be legalistic to wear them. I don't think it to be legalistic because 1 it's a part of the bible/Torah and 2 Yeshua wore them, are we not suppose to be His followers? Aren't we suppose to attempt to live as He lived? (those are rhetorical questions) I ask a lot of those.

I understand those are rhetorical questions at the end, but I'd like a stab at them anyways...

yes, we are Jesus' followers and we should attempt to live as he lived... I take that to mean his lifestyle, values... not each one of his actions...

for example, Jesus went to feasts in Jerusalem... I don't, because I don't think christians are supposed to...

(as a side note, if I did think I should imitate Jesus in that action, I would move to Israel... it would make regular trips to Jerusalem so much easier...)

 

[Dan_473]

Dan, I think if you go and read Romans 14: Indisputable Matters – Torah or the Gospel?, you'll find my approach to be rather gentle and loving . . . and somewhat joyful .

-JGIG

looks like a great essay... and I'm not saying that Torah/Gospel issue isn't important... rather, what is the best way to go about it?

like Ecclesiastes says, 'If the ax is dull, and one doesn’t sharpen the edge, then they must use more strength'

 

[Elin]

Have you ever read the prophets? If you have I would high suggest reading over them again.
If you're trying to teach based just off of the new testament, well you can't do that.
Yeshua and Paul were Jews. So they would have taught everything with a Jewish mindset.

That is an assumption on your part.

Gentiles would not be familiar with a Jewish mindset.

Even though it does state there is no Jew and no Gentile, they still taught using the old testament.
So Abraham's seed, turned into a mighty nation, that nation was called Israel.
It's all in the scriptures.

Yes, and the new order (Heb 9:10) spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers is in Gal 3:28-29. . .God makes no distinction between believing Jews and Gentiles, all are Abraham's seed and are one, not two, in Christ.

 

[Elin]

I am not, nor do I desire to be connected with the Hebrew Roots movement.

I still take issue with one of your premises.

We are grafted into Christ, not into Israel.


Ro 11:13-22
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
KJV

In the olive tree, to which the wild is grafted in, is obviously a figure of Israel

Would it not be a figure of God's believing people, both OT and NT, rather than all Israel, for much of Israel has been cut off from it.

In reality, would it not be the body of Christ, both OT and NT (Heb 12:22-24)?

Even saying that we are grafted into Christ; which we certainly are:

Christ is part of Judah through Mary.
Judah is part of Israel through Jacob (Israel).

Being in Christ is being in Israel. NOT by replacement ; but rather by inclusion.

God's promises to Israel are still to Israel; but the Church partakes of them by inclusion.

The Church also partakes of the heritage; which is not a bad thing.

God's promises are to his people.
And we learn in the words spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers that God has only one people, the body of Christ, wherein he makes no distinction among them (Gal 3:28-29), all are one, not two, or three, or four.

 

[MarcR]

Would it not be a figure of God's believing people, both OT and NT, rather than all Israel, for much of Israel has been cut off from it.

In reality, would it not be the body of Christ, both OT and NT (Heb 12:22-24)?


God's promises are to his people.
And we learn in the words spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers that God has only one people, the body of Christ, wherein he makes no distinction among them (Gal 3:28-29), all are one, not two, or three, or four.

I think we may be saying about the same thing and talking past each other. I think that cultural perspective might have more to do with it than what the words mean.

 

[JGIG]

Dan, I think if you go and read Romans 14: Indisputable Matters – Torah or the Gospel?, you'll find my approach to be rather gentle and loving . . . and somewhat joyful .

-JGIG

looks like a great essay... and I'm not saying that Torah/Gospel issue isn't important... rather, what is the best way to go about it?

like Ecclesiastes says, 'If the ax is dull, and one doesn’t sharpen the edge, then they must use more strength'

Note that JGIG is written more for believers who have had Torah folk cross their paths - to help them sort out the issues with the Gospel -

• Who Jesus is
• What He came to do
• What that actually accomplished, and
• Who those who believe in Christ are in Him

in full view. Everything must be measured with the Work of Christ in full view and by that standard, and that's what the above article does . And it does reach some in the Torah observant community. Check out the Testimonies Page at JGIG !

-JGIG

 

[Elin]

Would it not be a figure of God's believing people, both OT and NT, rather than all Israel, for much of Israel has been cut off from it.

In reality, would it not be the body of Christ, both OT and NT (Heb 12:22-24)?

God's promises are to his people.
And we learn in the words spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers that God has only one people, the body of Christ, wherein he makes no distinction among them (Gal 3:28-29), all are one, not two, or three, or four.

I think we may be saying about the same thing and talking past each other. I think that cultural perspective might have more to do with it than what the words mean.

And wouldn't it be "Israel" that is included in the body of Christ, rather than the body of Christ being included in "Israel"?

 

[ChristInUs]

Israel was rejected and destroyed (even Judah) and scattered to the nations only those who accept the work of the cross are Gods children and nothing else.

 

[Dan_473]

Israel was rejected and destroyed (even Judah) and scattered to the nations only those who accept the work of the cross are Gods children and nothing else.

I think a remnant of people physically decended from the man Judah remains today... mostly, they're the people we call 'jews'...

 

[MarcR]

The olive tree is a metaphor, one of several used in the Scriptures to depict Israel.

Here's the thing: we do not get our life from Israel, we get our life from Christ. We do not enter into Christ be first becoming Israel; we enter into Christ by faith.

. . . remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.​

If you read the article on the realities of olive tree grafting, it becomes clear that the grafted in branches don't 'turn into' or take on the identity of the host tree; no, they simply get their life from the root stock of the tree. Again, where do we get our life, whether a natural or wild branch? From Israel or from Christ?

Hebrew Roots Movement - Believers are Grafted Into and Become Israel? Um . . . No.

-JGIG

I agree with all you have said except your conclusion.

inferences from adoption (not from any movement):

1) our life and our hope is in Christ and Christ alone.

2) our new family heritage includes the promises and the chosenness of God to Israel

3) in those promises and that chosenness we are united with but have not replaced Israel

4) This relationship does NOT place any believer under LAW or its requirement

Whether or not you agree with my position; you can readily see that it differs greatly from Hebrew roots.

 

[tribesman]

It is not legalism to want to keep the law of God. It would be a kind of legalism to think that one's efforts in law-keeping will save you.

 

[Elin]

I think a remnant of people physically decended from the man Judah remains today... mostly, they're the people we call 'jews'...

They need genealogical records to prove it for it to count for anything Jewish.

 

[Elin]

I agree with all you have said except your conclusion.

inferences from adoption (not from any movement):

1) our life and our hope is in Christ and Christ alone.

2) our new family heritage includes the promises and the chosenness of God to Israel

3) in those promises and that chosenness we are united with but have not replaced Israel

4) This relationship does NOT place any believer under LAW or its requirement

Whether or not you agree with my position; you can readily see that it differs greatly from Hebrew roots.

But can there even be any kind of "replacement" when no distinction is made between them in matters of God (Gal 3:28-29)?

 

[MarcR]

But can there even be any kind of "replacement" when no distinction is made between them in matters of God (Gal 3:28-29)?

I don't think so; but I see a lot of replacement theology on the forum. When I encounter it I feel obliged to confront it.

 

[Dan_473]

They need genealogical records to prove it for it to count for anything Jewish.

what do you mean, 'count for anything Jewish'?

 

[Elin]

what do you mean, 'count for anything Jewish'?

proof. . .

 

[sparty-g]

Friend, what exactly are you saying here? That you agree with the accusers of the Messiah, Stephen, and Paul that they "ignored the Law"? And what do you mean by saying that the Messiah "ignored the Law"? If by "ignored the Law" you mean that He violated the Law and taught against it, you are getting into the dangerous territory of Him not qualifying as the sacrificial Lamb.

Following this train of thought is painting the Messiah as disobedient and the Pharisees as truly obedient ones. On the contrary, we find that the Messiah's charge against the Pharisees is that they weren't keeping the Law, but instead were breaking the commands of God in order to honor their own man-made regulations (cf., Matt. 15:1-9).

On the issue of Stephen, as someone else has already asked, where does the book of Acts record that Stephen was ignoring the Law? Here is what we find in Acts 6:

Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.” -- Acts 6:11-14 (NIV)

Seems like a rather straightforward narrative piece to me. These secretly persuaded men are false witnesses who bring a false testimony. The false testimony they bring is that Stephen speaks against the Temple and the Law, saying that Jesus will destroy the Temple and change the Law. If the testimony is false, then Stephen was not speaking these things. If Stephen was speaking against the Law, and saying it was changed by Jesus, then the testimony would be true. So which is it?

Let me offer a different perspective:

The Pharisees and teachers of the Law falsely accused the Messiah of violating the Law. The reality is that He kept the Law and was without sin. He only violated their misunderstanding of the Law, the fences they built around the Law, and their man-made regulations they bound upon the people. The Pharisees and teachers of the Law were the ones breaking the commands of God by putting the Law aside in order to elevate their man-made regulations. They end up putting the Messiah to death on the false charge of blasphemy. Fast forward to Stephen who, in a similar manner, is falsely accused of speaking against the Law and teaching that the Messiah would change the customs handed down from Moses. They end up stoning Stephen to death after levying this false charge. Now onto Paul, he faces similar false accusations when he visits Jerusalem, that he is teaching Jews to not be circumcised or follow their customs. He makes a public demonstration that there is no truth to the false accusations and that he himself walks in obedience to the Law. Later at the time of his incarceration and after, he is again falsely charged and the book of Acts records him defending himself three times.

So I ask in a similar way to you phrased it: 2,000 years later, are we agreeing with the false accusations of the people who killed the Messiah, Stephen, and Paul?

A Defense of the Gospel of Grace - addresses the above issues very well.

Give it a listen. Free player/download.

-JGIG

Hi JGIG, thank you for sharing the link. I listened to the sermon between last night and today. Rufus seems like a sincere man with a passion for the faith. His message sounds similar to Andrew Farley, whose sermons or messages I have seen you plug in this thread. I have both "The Naked Gospel" and "God Without Religion" on my bookshelf at home. Both are passionate men but it's probably no surprise to you that I disagree with certain aspects of their messages. I'm not going to touch upon Rufus' entire sermon from that recording, but only the parts relevant to our discussion. Here are my observations:

Rufus acknowledges the charges made against both Stephen and Paul--that they taught against the Torah-Law--and openly agrees with the charges. To makes his case, he would like us to believe the charges are true while I believe the text clearly says they are false. About Stephen specifically, he reads through the same passages I cited in Acts 6 but does not adequately address the issue of Stephen supposedly teaching against the Torah-Law. He makes a vague statement regarding the charges having "spin," doesn't fully explain what this means within the context of the passage, and then quickly moves on. About Paul specifically, he spends a good deal of time prefacing his reading of Acts 21 by establishing a framework of leadership cowering in fear to groups of legalists, even making a claim that the gospel message that was earlier preached in Jerusalem at Pentecost and by Stephen began to be lost or was lost by the time Paul visits Jerusalem in Acts 21. However, the narrative in Acts never makes this point; he assumes it and presents it as such in order to make his point. Then when he reads through the relevant passages in Acts 21, he skips over verse 24, which is the key verse under consideration here ("Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law."). He also never brings up the later accusations against Paul nor Paul's defense of himself in front of Felix, Festus, and the Roman Jews.

In sum, he doesn't properly handle the accusations against Stephen in Acts 6, then he skips over the verse in Acts 21 which identifies the motive of James' request in response to the accusations. To be honest, I'm not sure why you referred me to this sermon since he doesn't address any of the relevant passages I am using to support my claim. It was a fun listen and good reminder of the theological thinking behind Farley and those of his kind, but it doesn't add much to our discussion.

I'll repeat my claims in a simplified manner and ask you a simple question:

- Stephen was falsely charged with speaking against the Torah-Law and claiming that the Messiah would change the Mosaic customs handed down to them. (Acts 6:11-14)
- Paul was falsely charged with teaching Jews to turn from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to the customs handed down to them. (Acts 21:17-21)
- Both Stephen and Paul lived according to the commands of God revealed in the Torah-Law. The evidence for Stephen being the account in Acts 6 which identifies the claims of teaching against the Torah-Law as false (Acts 6:11-14). The evidence for Paul being the motive of James' request explicitly stated as being to prove to everyone that there is no truth in the reports about him and that he (Paul) himself walks living in obedience to the Torah-Law (Acts 6:24). As for Paul, there is further evidence later in the Acts narrative but there is no point in exploring it if we can't first get past these earlier passages.

My question:
- Are the reports against Stephen and Paul, as recorded in Acts, true or false? Please keep the relevant passages from Acts in focus while making your case.


Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, “We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. They produced false witnesses, who testified, “This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.” -- Acts 6:11-14 (NIV)


When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. -- Acts 21:17-14 (NIV)

 

[WheresEnoch]

That's the tragic lie, Biblelogic01 - you're NOT glorifying Yeshua - you are, by your actions, denying His Work of the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and His Perfect, Permanent High Priesthood. If you are truly in Christ, I'm not saying you'll lose your salvation by pursuing Torah, but you are making Christ of no effect to you in THIS life, and by choosing to walk in Law, have fallen away from Grace:

4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. (from Gal. 5)​

Before claiming this verse is about salvation by the Law, closely look at the definition for justified:

G1344 - dikaioō

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be
   

Those who preach Torah observance for those in Christ often state that Law-keeping is the 'evidence' of their salvation. That pretty much validates Gal. 5:4 as being written to those in Christ who are choosing to live by the Law.

You will find, over time, that the Law that you thought would bring you life, actually kills you.

Check out the testimonies here from other believers who believed as you do now and have come to walk in Grace, enjoying God's righteousness revealed apart from the Law:


Testimonies

This page is dedicated to testimonies of those who have once been a part of the Hebrew Roots Movement / Messianic Movement, but by the Grace of God have come to understand their freedom in Christ, rooted and established in love.



-JGIG

Just stop already please. You are wrong in many ways. Even if we drop the whole "laws of God are evil" discussion, you are wrong that a "believer" cannot live in sin (because they are completely clothed in Christ, therefore nothing they do can be seen as wrong by God), that we do not have to practice righteousness etc... This topic is not as black and white as you are making it seem, you lack the complete understanding of the depth of this discussion to be able to win me over to your side even if you are correct. Paul's words are easily misunderstood and twisted to justify lawlessness as Peter warned in 2nd Peter 3. There are many things which you are not grasping here. Just try to participate a bit more than dominate because your arguments aren't appealing to me intellectually

 

[WheresEnoch]

Oh, I don't know, why not ask the Galatians? They were the ones who were slipping back into it...

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

They had the Spirit but were slipping back into false practices.

They were thinking that they needed to be circumcised in the flesh in order to obtain salvation. Which was a huge problem that had to be continually dealt with for a while during the time of the apostles. But of course it's twisted to mean that obeying any of the commandments of God is what Paul is condemning because it is taken out of context by many.

 

[Biblelogic01]

JGIG

You posted something on a link for testimonies, assuming it's about messianics and saved Jews turning away from the Torah. Well take time and read this testimony.

I got "saved" when I was 7. That is when I accepted Christ, it was at a Christian church too. So few years later I'm in middle school, I was very anti following the OT to the point of anti-Semitism. In 7th grade I told a Jew he was going to hell, I was at that level of anti-Semitism. I followed the whole grace only show, and that following the OT was just for Jews. So now we get to high school, at this point in my life I was semi rebellious to my parents (mainly because they fought a lot, to the point where divorce could be in the picture, they weren't a happy couple). Now again my family is a big church going family, my mom was a children's ministry director. So anyway getting into my junior going into senior year the youth group minister is forced to step down and leave for not observing Christmas and Easter. This confused me, because I was always big on studying mythology (that was in middle and high school) so me knowing mythology and history this made sense to because neither Christmas nor Easter were technically mentioned in the bible. I had always heard of Passover as the last supper, I never realized it was actually mentioned in the bible outside of that. So I start doing bible studies with the former youth group minister. I started learning about Torah, I was mainly about the feasts at this point because that's what sparked my interest. Now at this time I'm just studying it, not observing. Between junior and my senior year I got my first job, it lasted 2 months. Well about a month after that I decided to start just observing 7th day Sabbath (friday sundown to saturday sundown) along with the commanded fests. Within a couple of months terms of employment for my sky rocketted. Now as far as my family I do remember my dad and I got in several arguments about Torah observance, and I found out his background was actually Jewish (he had been hiding it from me and my brothers because he was afraid of the judgement Jews get). So as a saved Jew he kept on going to the teachings of Paul (just like numerous folks on here do), long story short he gets to a point where he couldn't look at me sometimes. Now my mom, who was raised Baptists (key thing there, my mom was raised on the NT her whole life, her dad was a military pastor) she actually listened to me on what I was learning and going through, so she decided to start with the Sabbath and feast observance just as I did. Now every time I talked to my parents about this I always reassured them that Yeshua is my Lord and Savior, and salvation is through him. Anyway my mom at this time was diabetic, so a few months later we decided to follow dietary laws, within 2 months she is no longer diabetic (coincidence? I think not). This goes on for about a year and my dad starts to just observe 7th day Sabbath and the feast, to just check it out because he's never done it with a perspective of Yeshua in it. This continues on and a year or so later, my parents are no longer fighting and they're happy in their marriage again (and since then it has just gone uphill for them), now for me on the other hand I decided to walk away from the Torah walk and do my own thing. Within a month I lose my job and could not keep a job at all. Now my reason for the change I don't exactly know, my heart started not to be in the right place. I decided to turn away, but I did go start going to Christian church again because I felt that it was "easier" (I hate putting it that way because it makes Torah observance seem hard, and it's not). I started down a path that basically lead to a choice of jail time or the military. I obviously chose the military. So I slightly start getting in to teaching the word during basic training, I even lead a few people to Christ. Now I wasn't teaching Torah to them, I stayed away from the subject. Now after the military, I realized how well my parents relationship had gotten. I decided to slowly get back into a walk in Torah and so far I feel my life has been blessed immensely, and I thank God for it every single day. My parents walk and my walk with the Lord are stronger than ever.

So now based off of that testimony, if all those positive things came out of just simply following Torah, and doing so with Yeshua in it. How is that wrong out evil or against God? I don't see it at all.