The Three Types of The Hebrew Roots Movement

The Hebrew Roots Movement can be divided into three different types.  However it is a very diverse movement where on each of these levels there can be a variety of disagreements on interpretations of various Scriptures and Bible Prophecy and related issues like the Sacred Name Movement and which version of The Hebrew calendar to use ect.

Type 1 would be people like the late Chuck Missler who believe Christians should study the Torah and Hebrew customs to help understand The New Testament's cultural context and symbolism.  But they still believe in the basic Christian Doctrine that we are not under The Law anymore, they believe it can be good to do things like observe The Holy Days of Leviticus 23, but they should never be made obligatory.

Now maybe someone reading this has had some very limited and specific experience with American Evangelicalism that makes them think there are none who aren't at least Type 1.  However there are Independent Baptists like the Pastor I do not like to name who engage in what I call Reverse-Legalism considering it sinful to do any "Jewish Customs", and to some extent that problem goes all the way back to Ignatius of Antioch..  And related to that is the belief of hyper KJV Onlyists that you should never even check the original Hebrew Text or even the Greek for that matter.

But even among people who aren't Reverse-Legalists there is still a common lack of interest in studying The "Old Testament" beyond what we absolutely need to know, or will quote a Torah Law only when it suits their conservative politics.  Being even a Type 1 Hebrew Roots person requires more then just a willingness to check the Hebrew when you're unsure what a verse is saying, or the basic understanding of how Passover works required to even have an opinion on Easter chronology.  

Type 1 is what I consider myself, though to what extent I externally act like it may depend on my mood.

Type 2 are those who reject the basic Christian Doctrine that we are no longer under The Law, but while still keeping Paul just reinterpreting him.  

Type 2 has become the most well known form even though back in the 2000s people like Chuck Missler were more common.  Type 2 has became what you're assumed to be if you engage in Hebrew stuff at all.  Though a lot of Type 2s don't like to be called Hebrew Roots because they don't want to be associated with Type 3 and will prefer to be called Torah Observant.

Type 3 are those who reject Paul as a False Apostle.  Though not all Anti-Paulians are even doing Hebrew Roots stuff, some Anti-Semites think even Paul was too Jewish (like Alfred Rosenberg), some Anti-Paul people blame what they see as wrong with him on the Pharisees rather then the Greeks, kind of shows the duality of Paul when you think about it.

As I said there are disagreements even within each type, and among Paul rejecters the disagreements include whether or not to add Hebrews and Luke-Acts to what texts they condemn as Heretical.

The Reverse Legalists probably feel the existence of Type 2 and especially Type 3 vindicates their condemning even Type 1s like me, they will insist it's a gateway drug that inevitably leads to the more full blown heresies.  

However I have been a Type 1 Hebrew Roots Believer since long before any of this was as popular as it's become, since long before I started these blogs, and the ways I've changed has if anything gone in the opposite direction, I've become even more of an Anarchist, even more Antinomian.

Do Paul and James Disagree?

When it comes to accusing The New Testament of being ideologically inconsistent with itself, the biggest factor is suggesting an inherent conflict between The Epistle of James, and what Paul taught particularly in Romans and Galatians.  With how most Christians try to reconcile this being filtered through which presumed position they take.

First off I think Paul's Soterolgoy is misunderstood as I explain in The Free Gift of Grace.  Justification and Salvation are not the same thing, in Ephesians Paul says we are Saved by Grace through Faith with the Faith being the Faith of Jesus.

Among skeptics and Anti-Paul cults this accusation goes beyond just saying they don't agree, but saying James wrote his Epistle specifically against Paul.  Thing is a lot is missing if that was the plan.  James never brings up the issue of Circumcision even once. Nor does his discussion of the Law of Moses actually make it binding in the minutia, since in Chapter 2 Verse 8 like Paul and Jesus he makes the point that you're doing fine as long as you "Love thy Neighbor as you love thyself".  James also agrees with Paul that no one is without Sin.  He also never names Paul in it, which if it was directed against a single notable heretic is what I'd expect.

Paul and James are emphasizing different things because they are dealing with different issues.  But Paul still stressed the value of good works.  And James clarified what good works he cared about in Chapter 1 verses 26 and 27 which are no where near all the Laws the Hebrew Roots movement obsesses over.

It is often alleged that Paul himself refers to being in conflict with James.  The problem is three out of four times the name James appears in 1 Corinthians and Galatians Paul is clearly referring to him positively and stresses their agreement, and Acts is the same, no evidence of conflict between Paul and any James exists in that book.  It's only because of what Paul said we even know Jesus Brothers including James specifically became Apostles, the Gospels alone at face value do not tell us that.

But Galatians 2:12 then refers to the Legalists as "certain came from James".

First of all the grammar in the Greek is not so explicitly implying people sent by an individual, so even if the same James refereed to so positively a few verses earlier is the James meant, these people's actions may not accurately reflect the will of that James.  It just says there came certain people, and they are in some way "from James".

In 1st Corinthians there are no references to people saying they are "of James" but rather to groups saying they are of Peter, Apollos, Paul himself and even Jesus.  Here everyone understands Paul is not blaming either Peter or Apollos themselves for whatever issues these self proclaimed followers have, and we see even those putting to much emphasis on Paul get rebuked by Paul.

But here is a fact about the name James people overlook when discussing this issue, that name doesn't actually exist in the Greek at all, it's just the name Jacob.

Every time you see Jacob rather then James in the KJV New Testament it's examples where the Greek spelling just stops at the B with no additional suffix to help clarify grammar.  Most of those are references to the Jacob of Genesis.  But it was also the name of Joseph the husband of Mary's father/ancestor according to Matthew's genealogy which perhaps contextualizes him giving that name to his second son (first he actually begat), since Jesus's name was given by the Angel.

Every time it appears with any additional letters at the end the KJV makes it James.  And it seems in Galatians 2:12 that suffix is the basis for the word "from" in the translation.

So it could be the IakObou of Galatians 2:12 is not any contemporary Jacob, but Paul's way of referring to those who want to keep the Faith as Nationalist/Ethno-Centric as possible.  Who's successors today are British Israelism and Two-House Theology, which sometimes overlaps with the Hebrew Roots movement.

Early Jewish-Christian groups.

The different early Jewish-Christian groups mentioned in Early Church writings are often confused with each other, some of that confusion may begin with the Greek and Latin fathers themselves not always treating them as different.  Nazarenes, Ebonites and Hebrews are three names that get thrown around.

The Nazarenes according to most references were not guilty of any major Heresies, they had the entire New Testament, they viewed Jesus as the Son of God and The Messiah, and believed in The Virgin Birth, and they did not reject Paul.  They were viewed as outside of Orthodox Christianity only because they kept Torah.

The Ebonites didn't believe Jesus was Divine in any way, used only an altered version of Matthew, and rejected Paul. (It seems most also rejected the Virgin Birth but there were exceptions.)

The name Nazarenes is Biblically used of Believers in Acts 24:5, but it is of outside origin just as much as the name Christian was.  Contrary to how some people present it, I feel the origin of the name Christians in Acts 11 at Antioch is presented positively.

A website called NazareneJudaism.Com claims the Nazarene sect were the True Church and seek to identify themselves as the heirs to that group.  They have a lot of good information, but I also have to disagree with them in many areas.  Mainly they think the fact that the Nazarenes kept the Law means they must have disagreed with "Christianity" that we're not under it anymore.

Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho distinguished between Jewish-Christians who keep the law but don't teach it's obligatory, and those who teach it is obligatory.  I believe the former were the Nazarenes and the later the Ebonites, or this could be a disagreement among Nazarenes since Justin didn't allude to anyone rejecting Paul.  My own position is that keeping the Law can be beneficial, but we are not obligated to keep it.

The Nazarenes as I said used the proper New Testament, but they did have the original Hebrew version of Matthew.  Confusion seems to come in via that the altered Matthew the Ebonites used was called the Gospel According the Hebrews and sometimes of the Nazarenes.  In Bart Ehrman's Lost Scriptures of Christianity book, everything he puts under either the Nazarenes or the Ebonites I view as being from the Ebonite Gospel, and I think the Egyptian Gospel of the Hebrews may be the same as the Gospel of the Egyptians.

The Nazarenes viewed Jesus as the Son of God, but it's difficult to verify if they held a true Trinitarian doctrine.  What's said of their Christology could be interpreted as consistent with Arianism, or a view that Jesus had no pre-existence before being conceived in Mary's Womb (which is sometimes an aspect of Modalism).  It's difficult to know one way or the other.  However that the Arian Emperors engaged in a lot of Antisemitism makes me think them and the Nazarenes wouldn't have seen eye to eye.

According to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/antioch the Gentile Christians of Antioch at least originally weren't that Antisemitic, but often joined the Jews in Synagogues.  But after the Church married Rome the establishment started trying to fight this.  It may not be a coincidence that the key adversaries of Nestorius (Cyril of Alexandria and the Sister of Theodosius II) were also highly Antisemitic.

In Antioch, various means were used to counteract the great influence which the Jews had upon the local Christians. The synod of Antioch (341) forbade the Christians to celebrate Easter when the Jews were observing Passover, and John Chrysostom of Antioch, in his six sermons (c. 366–387), vituperatively denounced those Christians in Antioch who attended synagogues and resorted to the Jewish law courts.

When Christianity became the state religion, the position of the Jews of Antioch deteriorated. The Jews of Imnestar were accused of having crucified a Christian boy on the feast of Purim, and the Antiochian Christians destroyed the synagogue (423 C.E.). When the emperor Theodosius II restored it, he was rebuked by Simon Stylites and refrained from defending the Jews. In the brawls between the sport factions known as the "blues" and the "greens," many Jews were killed.

So that may make interesting background for my Nestorians and the Church of The East post.  Epiphanius of Salamis associates the Nazarenes with Boreas (Aleppo) and Basanitis (Bashan), thus placing them near Antioch.

Some commentators view the Gospel reaching Damascus as fulfilling the Syria part of the Great Commission, but that's because of Old Testament Aram being misleadingly translated as Syria.  Antioch was the capital of the Roman Province of Syria, so the Church being established in Antioch by the end of Acts 11 is what I view as fulfilling the Syria part of the Great Commission.

Does God Change?

The Hebrew Roots movement is filled with people rhetorically asking this question even though they think they already known the answer is NO based on their partial citing of Malachi 3:6 "I am Yahuah, I change not".

The problem is Augustine was a Gnostic because he felt an emotional God  who changed like the Yahuah of the Hebrew Bible must be Evil, and it was someone convincing him he could allegorize and explain away those changes that lead to Augustine becoming an "Orthodox" Christian and laying the foundations of Catholic and Calvansit heresy.

That God changes in terms of what man can and cannot do based on various factors is shown without even leaving the Torah.  Capital Punishment and permission to eat meat where introduced after The Flood.  Circumcision was introduced in Genesis 17 and the Sabbath as a command in Exodus 16.  The came Sinai, where this Meme I created is relevant.

Either God's attitude towards Incest changes, or maybe  Leviticus 18 isn't prohibiting Incestuous Marriage, you can't have it both ways.

The context of Malachi 3:6 is clear, just read the whole verse.

"For I am Yahuah, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

Because Yahuah's promises are unconditional Jacob will not be consumed.  And according to Genesis 48 the Fullness of the Gentiles are considered part of Jacob eventually.  Yet many of these same people want to say biological descent from Jacob is irrelevant because of their disobedience.

The Torah itself does not teach The Law is forever, that is simply an erroneous KJV translation.

The word translated "Everlasting" or "Forever' or "Eternal" when referring to things like the Levitical Priesthood, The Sabbath and the Holy Days is Olam, which means age or eon, it does not actually mean forever. Whether it's Exodus 40:15, or Leviticus 16:34, or Leviticus 24:8, or Numbers 25:13.  Same with Exo 21:6, Exo 27:21, Exo 28:43, Exo 29:28, Lev 6:18, Lev 6:22.

In Deuteronomy 33:27, Olam is used of the "everlasting arms" but a different word is used to call God Eternal.

 Likewise the phrase "all the days", which is introduced about time periods that have an end in Genesis 3:14-17.  And again in Genesis 5.  And it's also used of the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6.  If "all the days" is being used of something that is also defined as an Olam, an Age, then it clearly means all the days of that age, just as it can also mean all the days of someone's life.  Taking the phrase to inherently mean all the days of eternity, it wishful thinking.

Exodus 19:5-6 foretells there will be a time when all of the Nation will be Yahuah's Priests. The temporariness of The Torah is implied in The Torah.

See also today's post on my Prophecy Blog, and the Priesthood of all Believers post.

Even the foreigner that shall dwell among you

People like to use the passages in The Torah that say even foreigners, even people not by Blood descended from Abraham, living among you need to be Circumcised and follow other parts of The Law, against Paulian theology (or to reinterpret Paulian theology).

Those verses are about Nationality/Citizenship.  The Nation of Israel were given special privileges by Yahuah, one of which was the right to live in the Land that He gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  People could become citizens of that nation without needing to be literal genealogical descendants of Jacob, but that required following the rules he gave that Nation.

But that does not mean Salvation, or even the ability to please Yahuah and be considered righteous, was limited to that Nation, or people living by that Nation's rules.

Circumcision was introduced in Genesis 17.  So it's significant that we can clearly infer Jethro's family/priesthood did not practice Circumcision (I don't believe he descended from Abraham, we have to go outside the Torah to find him called a Kenite, but he was still in the Torah only said to be a priest in Midian, not a Midianite).  Moses had married Jethro's daughter and lived as one of them for 40 years before the Burning Bush, and yet still hadn't Circumcised his son.  In fact Zipporah seemed rather disturbed by the practice.

Deuteronomy 2 has God telling the Israelites he's NOT giving them any land of Edom, Moab or Ammon, saying he gave those lands to those nations.  They may have had Circumcision, Edom almost certainly did, but not the rest of the Torah.

That includes The Sabbath, I did a post already on my Prophecy Blog about how The Sabbath as a custom was introduced in Exodus 16.  The precedent may have been set by Genesis 1-2, but there is no evidence of the Patriarchs in Genesis or Israelites in Exodus before this practicing it.

God promised Abraham that in his Seed shall ALL the Nations and Families of the Earth be Blessed.

So those are all points for Torah only and heavily Torah centric people.  Going to the rest of the Hebrew Bible.  Did Jonah Circumcise all the men of Nineveh?  Did the Queen of Sheba follow all of the Law?  Obviously not, but Jesus clearly refereed to them as Saved.  And God also calls Cyrus his Anointed in Isaiah 44/45.

Amos 9:7 is a verse that implies there are even other nations Yahuah might have had similar relationships with.

First it says the children of Israel are like the children of the Cushites to Him.  Isaiah 18 and Zephanaih also have verses taken to imply the Cushites were like the Israelites.  And then there was Moses Cushite wife, and Ebedmelech who was an Ethiopian in Jerusalem who was friends with Jeremiah.  And the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah in Acts 8.

Then He says He brought Israel out of Mizraim like he brought the Philistines out of Caphtor and the Arameans out of Kir, a location in northern Mesopotamia.

This is one of a few verses that seems to say the Philistines came from Caphtor, which causes people to think the usual interpretation/translation of Genesis 10:14 must be wrong in saying they came from Casluhim.  But if this Amoz verse is comparing their relation with Caphtor to Israel's with Mizraim, then perhaps they genealogically descended from the Casluhim but had sojourned for a time in Caphtor?

Throughout the Torah and even down to the time of David, Aram was mostly associated with northern Mesopotamia, parts of Turkey, Syria and northern Iraq on the other side of the Euphrates.  Harran is repeatedly called a land of Aram.  I think Hadadezer son of Rehob of Zobah might be a king of the Assyrian King's List.  The origin story of Aram Damascus is interestingly told in 1 Kings 11, and Yahuah is claiming credit for it there.

It's been speculated that the comparison of Cush to Israel here means Cush too was brought out of Mizraim.  Interestingly the origins of the Kingdom of Kush/Nubia that later became the 25th Dynasty can be estimated to be contemporary with Amoz (the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II).

But Salvation isn't even limited to those righteous Gentiles either.  Ezekiel 16 clearly teaches that even Sodom will be restored.

The Torah places the Law on The Mountain of The Curse.

Deuteronomy 11:29.

"And it shall come to pass, when Yahuah thy God hath brought thee in unto the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt put the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal."

Deuteronomy 27:1-4-8

 "And Moses with the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandments which I command you this day.  And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which Yahuah thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster:  And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which Yahuah thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as Yahuah God of thy fathers hath promised thee.  Therefore it shall be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them with plaster...........  And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly."

This is my problem with the Torah Worshiping movement, The Torah itself acknowledges that the Law is a Curse we are to one day be liberated from.   Now I believe choosing to keep the Law can be good, but we are not under any obligation.  See The Law of Moses and Christianity.

So The Torah agrees with Galatians 3:10-13.

Now some will use textual variations to say this is wrong, obviously the Law was on Mt Gerizim.  The Samaritan Pentateuch adds their own references to Gerizim, and changed Deuteronomy 27 to say the Altar here was to be set up on Gerizim not Ebal.  But it agrees that Gerizim was the Blessing Mountain, and Ebal the Cursing Mountain.

Now in some areas, I have become open to consider that the SP sometimes may be the correct version, contrary to my past strict Masoretic adherence.  That may be the subject of an upcoming post.  But not on this issue.

The Book of Joshua in Chapter 8 verses 30-33 verifies that this Altar was built on Ebal. The Samaritans have their own version of Joshua, but it is clearly a much younger text.

Archeology verifies that a structure was build on Ebal going back to the Bronze Age.  Nothing was built on the Samaritan Mt Gerizim till the time of Alexander The Great.  Some have even theorized that the Samaritan Mountain isn't the Biblical Gerizim but perhaps the true Gerizim was to the North of Ebal.

The Samaritans' particular reverence for Gerizim isn't the only motive to want to change this.  So no I'm not impressed by one DSS text that seems to agree with the Samaritan version here.  Many would be uncomfortable with the implications of the Law being placed on the Cursed Mountain.  Like the Desert Tabernacle website, who are willing to change the Torah to suit their preferences regardless of a textual basis.

And that's the thing, there was no reason to change this the other way, those who preserve the Torah tend to revere it, the Masoretic Text was preserved by Kariates not Rabbis, so they would never choose to change it in a way that diminishes the Law.

The Septuagint and Vulgate sometimes seem to agree with the SP readings, but they don't here.

I may even think the Samaritan version of Exodus 20 is more correct then most people do.  It's apparently a misrepresentation when people claim it makes this part of the Ten Commandments.  And Deuteronomy is mostly about repeating commands given earlier, hence it's name.  But if so, I believe the original version of that would have read Ebal not Gerizim.

The Law is the Curse, but the Seed of Isaac is the one Promised to Bless all Nations and Families.  So maybe the Samaritans are right about Isaac being offered on Gerizim, the Vulgate seems to possibly agree with the Samaritan reading of Genesis 22:2, as saying Moreh rather then Moriah.  Only problem is I feel inclined to believe Jesus was Crucified at about the same spot Isaac was Offered.

Incest and The Law of Moses

My previous Incest in The Bible post I still want to be my definitive discussion of the topic.  What I'm going to argue here I'm not definitively arguing for.  It's somewhat Rhetorical.  But I can't say I entirely don't actually agree with it either.  It's a complicated matter.

In my discussions with those who strongly believes Christians are still supposed to follow the Law of Moses.  I see them misusing Malachi's "God doesn't Change" quote.

Which bugs me because Augustine of Hippo, when he was a Manichean still, cited the fact that the Old Testament depicted an Emotional God who changes as what he was mainly uncomfortable with, and why he was drawn to sects that depicted that God as Evil.  It was Ambrose convincing him those changes could be allegorized away that convinced him to convert to "Orthodox" Christianity.  And thus Augustine because the chief popularizer of many Quasi-Gnostic heresies I've been fighting on this Blog.

Malachi's point had nothing to do with whether or not what God permits us to do can change.  It mostly has to do with that He keeps His Word.  God repents of things often in the Old Testament (Repent means a change of mind), but when He swears an oath He won't Repent.  The immediate context was promising the children of Jacob they will not be consumed.

So to point out the absurdity of this misuse I created the following Image via Meme Generator.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7329/27275013204_7f6d7bfc96_o.jpg

That was the most shocking example.  I also brought up the evidence that Capital Punishment and eating meat wasn't allowed before the Flood but were after.  Arguing God's laws had changed a few times before we even left the Torah (or more strictly speaking before we reached it).

On those latter two issues however they had arguments against the notion that those things were treated differently before the Flood.  I forget what the argument on Capital punishment was.  But for the eating meat they basically felt the allusions to Animal Sacrifice in the Pre-Flood world implied eating Meat.  And I think there was an appeal to the heretical Book of Enoch.  I was and still am unconvinced of those arguments, but at least they made fairly Biblically based arguments.

On the Incest issue however they just cited the common argument from my fellow Young Earth Creationists that the supposed Genetic Risks from Inbreeding simply weren't a factor till many generations after the Flood.  And while I'm as inclined as ever to agree with that argument scientifically.  It's not a directly Biblical argument.

And either way it doesn't change that God's Law apparently changed.  It changing with a reason doesn't undermine the comparison to things changing at the Cross and/or Pentecost.  That event is what all History revolves around according to our world view.  There was as good a reason then as there ever was to change some things.

Now to get to the main topic of this post.  As I was laughing to myself at their failure to even make an argument.  I went and came up with an argument for them.  This has been in my mind for months, over a year actually, I just kept putting off making a post on it.

The wording in Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy on the Incest restrictions is strictly speaking about Sex not Marriage.  And I have shown Biblically that not all Sex Outside Marriage is a Sin.  And that it's mostly potentially reproductive Sex the God puts restrictions on.

So one could make the argument that when you marry someone your relation to them legally changes, and they are now your Wife not your sister or distant-Cousin-as-a-fellow-descendant-of-Noah or whatever your relation was.

Now I know that sounds kinda like a Loop Hole.

My argument about the very differently worded verses alleged to condemn all Homosexuality also get accused of being a Loop Hole, but they're not.  The issue there is that only someone with a very modern way of thinking about Sexuality would read that as condemning all Same-Sex affection to begin with.  When dealing with other commands in the Torah, all both Jewish and Christian scholars agree if there is a qualifying statement, it's condemning only where the qualifier applies.  "Don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk" is not condemning all boiling or even all boiling of kids (nor does it condemn Cheeseburgers as some Rabbis think).  It's condemning a specific Canaanite practice that we now know quite a bit about thanks to the Ugarit texts.

But even if it is a Loop Hole.  If God's Word has Loop Holes they are there for a reason.  When I look at Chuck Missler's argument about how God worked around the Curse on Jechoniah, it sounds like God loves taking advantage of his own loop holes.

I've done a post on why Amnon's Sin was mainly Rape, and the incestuous part was incidental.  And I even then talked about how what Tamar says in II Samuel 13:12-13 seemingly ignores that marrying your Sister is supposed to be illegal.  Now I am iffy on building doctrine on something a girl says to ward off unwanted advances.  But it is still there in the text that theoretically David might have let Amnon marry Tamar if he simply asked.  It kinda parallels an aspect of what God via Nathan says to David when exposing his Sins against Uriah The Hittite.

More interesting however is the second witness I have.

Now much has been written about how in the Song of Solomon, The Beloved poetically called Shulamith his Sister.  I've seen people argue "Sister" is simply a misleading translation, and that I don't buy.

I am NOT about to argue they were literally Brother and Sister, I stand by my earlier post on the Song of Solomon where I argue Shulamith is Shelomith daughter of Rehoboam and Granddaughter of Solomon, and The Beloved a humble Shepard not of Royal Blood.

I am aware that some of the arguments against them being actually Brother and Sister could be explained away by them being half siblings, same father and different mothers.  But my ultimate conclusion remains the same as it was in those posts, largely because I see no evidence of the Beloved being Royalty.

The key factor is Song of Solomon Chapter 8 Verse 1, where Shulamith is talking.  This verse tells us a few things.

"O that thou wert as my brother, that sucked the breasts of my mother! when I should find thee without, I would kiss thee; yea, I should not be despised."

It clearly says they are not brother and sister.  But at the same time she says she wishes he was?  Like it would easier if he was?  And it makes sense with her being Royalty and him not since patriarchal societies tend to be less tolerant of women marrying below their station then men.  Princesses are usually either married into other Royal families, or if incest is allowed they marry within their own.  Egypt wasn't the only ancient Monarchy to practice Royal Incest, they were just different in making it almost completely required.

There is kind of a New Testament passage I could mention, but it's very iffy to build doctrine on since it partly depends on bringing in sources outside of The Bible.   Acts 25 starting in verse 13 through to the end of chapter 26.

If Acts was our only source of information on these people, you'd never know that Agrippa and Berenice were brother and sister, you would assume Berenice was Agrippa's wife though she's not explicitly called that either, it reflects that she was being treated as Agrippa's Queen.  Still their Incestuous relationship would have been fairly well known to Luke's initial first century audience.  So that no judgment is passed on it is interesting, in fact Paul tells Agrippa that he knows Agrippa is learned in the Scriptures and believes the Prophets.

A lot has been speculated on concerning Luke's relationship to Josephus, those late dating Luke say it must have depended on Josephus, others say they must have used some common sources.  And the subject of Agirppa and Berenice is part of that discussion.  Josephus is quite condemning of them, but I can't help but wonder how much even that was more his Greco-Roman Audience's attitudes towards Incest then a first century Jewish one.  Luke in addition to being not so harsh to them is also kinder to Felix and Drusilla in Acts 24 (Drusilla was another sister of Agrippa and Berenice) then Josephus was.

This all happens to fit in well with a post I did in September 2015 on my Prophecy Blog on the subject of The Man Child being The Church.  [However now that September 2015 post is kind of defunct cause of how my view of The Bride of Christ has changed.]

Mainly my point here is, to Hebrew Roots Christians, either argue that Marrying your Brother or Sister isn't prohibited, or stop the "God Never Change his laws" argument.  You can't have it both ways.

What does Lawlessness mean in the New Testament?

You know Gamaliel II (Not to be confused with the first who was Paul's mentor before his conversion) was the first person to use Matthew 5:17-18 to undermine the Christian message of Liberty from the Shackles of the Law.  Babyl. Talmud Sabbath, p. 116

 Imma Salom was the wife of the Rabbi Eliezer, the sister of Rabban Gamaliel. Among his acquaintances was a “philosopher” who had the reputation of being incorruptible. They wished to make him ridiculous. Therefore she [Imma] brought to him a golden candlestick, and said: “I desire a part of the family property.” He answered them: “Divide it.” Then he [B. Gamaliel] said: “It is written for us [Numbers 27:8] that, where there is a son, the daughter inherits nothing.”. He answered: “Since ye were driven from your land the law of Moses is abolished, and there is Avon-gillajon [Evangelium = the Gospel], in which it is written, ‘Son and daughter shall inherit together’.” On the following day he [E. Gamaliel] on his own part brought him a Libyan ass. Then he replied: “I have searched further in the Avon-gillajon, and it is written therein: ‘I, Avon-gillajon, have not come to do away with the Thora, but to add to the Thora of Moses have I come.’ And it is further written therein: ‘Where there is a son, the daughter shall not inherit’.” Then she said: “Thy light shineth like a candle.” And E. Gamaliel said: “The ass has come, and has attached the candle”

It's possible that by The Gospel the entire New Testament was meant, and the basis for this Christian's argument was where Paul said There is neither Mal nor Female.   So remember, every time you see a Hebrew Roots person using this part of Matthew with the intent of undermining the clear teaching that some things are different under The New Testament, that is an argument that originated with a Rabbi whom Rabbinic Judaism reveres to this day.

The context of what Jesus said here is clear.  Matthew 5:17-20.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

The set up for the Sermon on the Mount is about the impossibility of living by the Law.  All who try to be justified by it will fail.  Except for Jesus who was without Sin, He fulfilled The Law by living a perfectly Torah observant life for us, and then taking our punishment for us.

And also, that not one Yot or Tittle will pass away shows that God's Word will exist, will be preserved, as it has been in the Masoretic and Textus Receptus texts.

These individuals like to emphasize verses that use the word Amonia, commonly translated Iniquity in the KJV but more accurately should be Lawlessness.  But they want to treat it like it means Atimonia, against the Law.

Matthew 7:21-23.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

The people accused of Iniquity were those doing good works, they were doing the main good work Jesus commanded his Disciples to do, casting out Demons.  People want to to go to completely different books of The Bible to decide what the "Will of The Father" means here.  Many things are His will, we're told it's His will that none should Perish.  But His will here is perfectly explained in it's own context, we are to know Jesus, to have a personal relationship with Him.

What we see here is consistent with Matthew 5, the main people Jesus condemns for Lawlessness are those who are trying to justify themselves by The Law.  This is repeated in Matthew 23:28 "Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.".  And this is Paul's Point in Romans 2 an 3, rebuking those who agree with the rhetorical rant that ended Romans 1.

And yes, I think that applies even to Paul in II Thessalonians 2 saying the Son of Perdition will work Iniquity.  There is plenty of evidence that the Antichrist will actually create a Torah based system, as I talked about in The Antichrist may not be as Popular as we assume, and in one of my Babylon posts.

Some people will translate 2 Peter 3:17 in a way to make it seem like it uses the word Amonia or Lawless.  But this is a completely different word that I feel the KJV was correct in rendering Wickedness. So no, it doesn't help us determine what he meant by Paul being misunderstood in the prior verses.

Now again, I view keeping The Law as good.  What I am against is trying to make other Christians feel obligated.  We are to be lead by The Holy Spirit, not by Ink and Paper.

The Law of Moses and Christianity

There are two extremes on the issue of keeping the Law of Moses in the Church.  There is the "God never changes" so keeping the Law is just as Important as ever crowd.  Some may even argue it's stricter now.  And then there is the full on it is BAD for Christians to keep the Law, even the Holy Days, camp.

The latter is absurd, to suggest it's bad to follow Jesus example by keeping the Feast of Tabernacles.  The only way it would ever become bad is if you try to force it on others.

The extremists of the former camp come in varieties.  I have said already about all I care to regarding those who want to reject Paul as a false Prophet.  Or anyone else who will deny Faith Alone and Eternal Security.

To those like Rob Skiba, who I greatly respect.  The key issue I want to ask is, did Paul mean what he said when he said "all things are lawful to be, but not all things are beneficial" in Corinthians?  All the issues you can point out about the health benefits of not eating Pork are relevant to the beneficial part of that statement, but they do not undermine the lawful part.

I believe in Eternal Security.  I believe there are different judgments for Believers and Unbelievers.  I believe only Believers will receive rewards and only Unbelievers will receive punishments.  But some Believers will get no rewards as the Bema account in Corinthians shows.  There are five different Crowns we can win, I don't want to go in depth on them here.  But the point here is that one is a reward for not sinning, maybe one or two others are also relevant to the law.  But Martyrs have a guaranteed crown no matter how they lived their Christian life up to that point.

One of the arguments for suggesting the Law is now stricter for Christians is to say that because now all Believers are "Kings and Priests" that laws unique to the Priests and Kings in the Torah now apply to all Believers.

Leaving aside the issue that the Priesthood in question here is not the Aaronic one, but of Melchizedek (it may surprise you to learn that even Rabbis have taught that the Priesthood of Melchizedek in a sense includes all believers).  What the New Testament actually teaches is that we all have the opportunity to be Kings and Priests.

Apostates, as I have argued before, lose their citizenship in the Kingdom (but not their Salvation).  So they certainly won't become Kings of it.

I would hesitate to argue you are a King by winning any Crown, since there are two different Greek words for Crown used in the NT.  But I would advise that if you want to be a King in the Kingdom then it would help to follow the instructions God gave the King (which Solomon failed to follow) in Deuteronomy.  But that does not make it a Sin to not follow those instructions.

My point is keeping the Law is good, as long as you're not doing it thinking it contributes to your Salvation.  My objection to much of what I hear from the Torah observing community lies only in my opposition to making other Christians feel obligated to do anything.

Rob Skiba complains about strawmen he's accused of.  But he's engaging in one when he says things like "I'm just saying it's a good idea to obey God".  I believe we should obey God, but I believe God's commands are different for each of us, we are to be lead by The Holy Spirit.  When Jesus said "Those who love Me obey My commandments" in John it's right before he talks abut sending the Comforter, that is not a coincidence.

I feel the most important command God has given me personally is to never tell other people what to do, and to politely and respectfully as I can oppose those who do tell others what to do.  That is why I spend so much time on the Homosexuality issue even though I'm mostly Straight myself, and why regardless of economic disagreements I tend to vote Libertarian.  But on the Homosexuality issue  I show it's not condemned in the Torah either, practicing Homosexuals can keep perfectly Kosher.

And yes I know Rob insists he's not telling anyone what to do.  But so much of the what he says in context easily comes off that way, intentionally or not.

I know it is popular now to suggest every use of the word Sin should be defined by 1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."  But I say perhaps the word "Law" should be defined by Galatians 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.".  Which I have a second witness for in how Jesus defined the two greatest commandments.  As well as James 2:8.

Using the Internet on The Sabbath

I've noticed a few example of Torah observing Christians saying they don't go on The Internet on The Sabbath.  I find that strange.

Any argument that going on the Internet qualifies as servile work would be as absurd as the Rabbis saying it would violate the Sabbath to push the button on an Elevator.

The Sabbath is also a day of Assembly, part of it's purpose is for God's People to come together.  In the modern world The Internet is a vital part of how we do that.  If you know other believers in your area you should feel free to consider communing with them more important.

But we should never neglect using part of The Sabbath Day to check whatever online groups and communities we are members of.  And so on.  Cause some of us lack local like minded Believers we can fellowship with in person.

Sabbath posts

The Sabbath is considered a morality dispute to many Christians.  But for various reasons I tend to wind up discussing it on my Prophecy Blog, because anything about The Calendar is potentially Prophetic.  So I figured I'd share some posts here.

In which I argue against the notion that The New Testament calls for Sunday Worship.

In which I address the SDA desire to connect it to The Mark.

In which I argue against those saying Jesus rose on The Sabbath not Sunday.

In which I address the Lunar Sabbath theory.

In which I revisit my view on The Sabbath's role in the Passion narrative.

In which I discus The Sabbath's connection to The Manna.

The last half of those I made within the last week.  They may be subject to some editing in the near future.

Update October 28th 2016:  And now I have made on on this Blog.

 Using The Interne ton The Sabbath.

Update April 2016: And I did a follow up on the Lunar Sabbath issue.

Update June 2024: As that Prophecy Blog is Retired now I'm gonna need to redo the more important of those, mostly on this Blog probably rather then Materialist Eschatology.

I've changed The Lord's Day is The Sabbath not Sunday quite a bit, abandoning tangents I don't feel like supporting anymore and adding some new material.

For Sin is the Transgression of The Law

1 John 3:4

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

This verse is popular with the people who insist they're not Legalists but sure talk like they are.  Who feel as long as they aren't saying it's necessary for Salvation they don't qualify as Judiazers.   Problem is I know too many people who started out that way and then slowly slid into full blown legalism.

They usually only quote the second half.  In context an argument can be made this means every Sin is a transgression of the Law, but not every transgression of The Law a Sin.  At the very least the cause and effect they have reversed, they like to say if there is no Law there is no Sin.  In fact The Law exists to tell us what is sinful, Paul said in Romans 1 the Romans were without excuse even though they were Pagans who never knew the Law of Moses.

And they insist this verse should tell us what Paul means by Sin every time he used the word, even though this isn't a Paulian Epistle.  Regardless of the validity of that lexical assumption, there is a deeper issue.

There is this popular Video online of a Pastor putting a row of kids on stage to demonstrate a deconstructive chain reaction that begins with saying there is no Sin without The Law.  The full testimony of the New Testament, (however you view this verse of 1 John) says that The Law exists to help us know when we're Sinners (Romans 7:7, Galatians 3:19).  So that destroys his entire chain reaction, The Law exists because of Sin not the other way around.

They think the word "Law" must mean the Law of Moses every time it's used even in the New Testament.  Forgetting that the Book of Esther spends a lot of time talking about Laws that aren't Hebraic at all.

But they insist on defining ever use of the word Sin based on this verse, how about we define every use of Law based on Galations 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.".  Which has a second witness in what Jesus said about the two greatest commandments.

Jeremiah 31 foretells a new Covenant coming, and says in verse 33.

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Now to this day Rabbinic and other Jews insist this refers to merely a re-instituting of the Mosaic Covenant.  But Paul clarifies this in the Book of Hebrews. In Chapter 8 where he explains that the Law of Moses was always imperfect, and the New Law is written on our Hearts not in Stone.

Romans 13:10 refers to the Law of Love.  James 1:25 and 2:12 refer to the Law of Liberty.

In 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23 Paul says "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me," and then the following statement is different.

I can again recommend reading Romans 14.

But I keep hearing people equating saying we're not under The Law of Moses to Christians arguing we don't have to Obey God.  It is important we obey God, but his instructions come from The Holy Spirit now.  The Word is still a useful guide to help The Holy Spirit in instructing us, but it is not a means for us to Judge other people, fellow Believers or not.

But still the word Obey never occurs in John's Gospel.

Now people like to quote John 14:15

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

What is ignored is the very next verse where He promises to send the Comforter (The Holy Spirit), the Commandments He means by that are those which come from The Holy Spirit.

A Believer letting The Holy Spirit lead them while following The Golden Rule and what Jesus called the Two Greatest Commandments should have little trouble keeping from doing the most obviously evil things.

But there are grey areas, and areas where His instructions may be different for different believers depending on the different plans God has for them.

Things like the Dietary Laws, and Keeping the Sabbath and the Holy Days are by no means a vital issue worth being divisive over.

Now I am also against the Reverse-Legalists as I like to call them.  Independent Baptists and others who think keeping Jewish Holidays and getting Circumcised as an adult is somehow now a Sin.

It is certainly never a Sin to do what Jesus did because Jesus was without Sin, and He observed Tabernacles in John 7 and Hanukkah in John 10.

Choosing to keep The Law under no delusion that it effects Salvation can be good for spiritual Growth, so long as you don't try to impose it upon others or think it makes you better (more right with God) then anyone else.

I close with 1 Timothy 1:8-9.

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,".

Dietary Laws and Pork

So there are people out there seeking to deny even that the Dietary Laws don't apply to Christians.  Especially in regards to Pork.

They say Acts 10/11 isn't about food at all.  That is indeed not the main point, the main point is about not excluding Gentiles.  But the fact remains Jesus told Peter to Eat.

Even under the Old Testament it was not something required of Gentiles.  If you were not circumscribed dietary laws didn't apply to you.  Pork is included in no scholar's version of the hypothetical Noahide Laws.  The only dietary law to predate Moses is the law against eating live animals and drinking blood from Genesis 9.

I'm fully aware that it actually is healthy to follow the dietary laws.  Pork isn't healthy.  The issue is beneficial vs unlawful.  In 1 Corinthians 6 Paul says "all things are lawful unto me but not all things are beneficial".  People want to take the last part as undermining the first, but it's only in regards to Biblical Laws people play that game.  The fact that it's legal to smoke tobacco but not healthy doesn't mean cops are gonna arrest you anyway.  (They might actually under our horribly corrupt government but that's not how a just legal system works).  The ramifications for doing something unhealthy is that your health will be hurt.  Nothing more and nothing less.

They point to lots of references to Pigs being a favorite animal to use in pagan sacrifices. (I didn't see any sources but I'll take their word on it for now).  Then point to the commands not to eat foods sacrificed to animals and say, that means Pork.

No, it means don't eat the meat of an animal sacrificed to an idol.  Sacrificial meat does get eaten, including in Biblical sacrifices.  Pig, lamb, beef, or even vegetables doesn't matter eating food offered to idols we are told we shouldn't do.

It doesn't mean any animals considered eligible for a pagan sacrifice.  Lots of the same animals that are Biblically clean were eligible also.  Especially Bulls, I've read a lot in the past about Bulls in pagan sacrifices.  In Egypt bulls were offered to Apis their bull god.  Apis was probably what inspired the Golden Calf, which in turn inspired Jeroboam's calf Idols he built at Bethel and Dan.

But even on the subject of meats sacrificed onto Idols, Paul clarifies.

1 Corinthians 8:4 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."

 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.  If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.  But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:  Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

We're to refuse to eat it only if we're specifically told it was offered to an Idol  And the issue is setting an example, not the meat itself.   These same teachers of Paul are discussed in this article.

Now I've seen people say that "The Jews didn't even think of Pork as food" to try and render verses like the above irrelevant.  If it wasn't thought of as something eligible to be food God would never have commented it in any dispensation.  Just as he never goes out of his way to condemn eating dirt or feces.

Rob Skiba, who is actually the main person I've had in mind this entire post (and some guests he's had on his show), actually refers to when Antiochus Epiphanes offered a Pig on the Altar as if that event is recorded in the Book of Maccabees.  It's not, I've read first and second Maccabees, there is no reference to a pig being offered there.  There is no verification Anitochus was personally in Jerusalem at all when the Idol was consecrated.  It refers to sacrifices to the Idol on the Altar but not what kind of animal was sacrificed.  Since second Maccabees implies it was Dionysus festivals celebrated in the Temple, it seems more plausible the sacrifices made were animals sacred to Bacchus.

Nor is the whole Menorah burring for 7 days on 1 days worth of oil story in them. Nor is either incident mentioned in the Biblical authentications of Hanukkah, not in Daniel not in Haggai not in John 10.  Both events would be included in the Epic miniseries I want to make about the Maccabean Revolt, because they're things the audience will want to see.  But their historical foundation is non existent, they're more pharisaic fables.

Now I don't want to accuse Rob of lying, but it's difficult when he specifically says the Book of Maccabees defines the Abomination of Desolation as being when the Pig was killed on the Altar. Maccabees doesn't mention a Pig but it mentions the Idol, Dios Olympos placed in The Temple.  The Hebrew word for Abomination used in Daniel isn't the one from Leviticus 18 that can mean any unclean act, it's the one used when it's a derogatory term for the Idol itself, like in 1 Kings 11.

That was the first Abomination of Desolation.  The future one will be a Man deifying Himself in the Holy Place.  Proclaiming himself to be God. In the Holy of Holies.

If the Pig being offered did happen.  That it was a Levitically unclean animal only added insult to injury.  The point was it was an offering made to an Idol.

I did find a reference to Swine's Flesh being sacrificed in I Maccabees.  But it's not directly connected to the Abomination, to the Temple or said to be something Antiochus did personally.  However I did find in Josephus Antiquities of The Jews Book 12 Chapter 5 a reference to Antiochus sacrificing Swine's Flesh on the Altar, and a similar claim exists from a Pagan POV in Diodorus Siculus.  None of that changes that the Abomination of Desolation is defined as being the Idol, not the Swine's Flesh.

Now they go on to insist that eating Pork isn't even discussed in Acts 15 as something those Gentile believers were doing.  That's irrelevant.  In the end there are only three restrictions we are held to.  No idolatry, no prostitution (that is what fornication meant in 1611 and what Proneia means in Greek) and no eating Blood.

Eating Blood was distinct from the other dietary laws.  Being the only one with a basis that goes back to Genesis 9.  And likewise it is in Acts 15 treated as distinct from the food offered to Idols.

These people trying to undermine how we aren't under the Law of Moses like to say things like "does God change" as if saying yes to that would be a horrible heresy.  Actually The Hebrew Scriptures record God repenting (repent means a change of mind) many times.  I point this out elsewhere to refute those who think repent always means repenting of Sin.  He repented in Numbers and He repented of what he was going to do to Nineveh in Jonah.

It's actually a Gnostic heresy to see God as completely unchangeable.  Augustine of Hippo was a Gnostic and the main thing keeping him from converting to Christianity was that he was uncomfortable with the Old Testament depicting an emotional God who sometimes changes his mind.  It was when Ambrose convinced him those emotions could be allegorized away that he became a Christian but brought much of his Platonism and Gnosticism with him.  And thus both Catholicism and Calvinism were born.

When God makes a Promise or a Covenant or swears an Oath then He won't change on that.  Which is why you can be assured you are saved by faith and salvation can't be lost.  So yes in certain senses God doesn't change as Malachi said, but Calvinists take that verse out of the grander context of Scripture.

Specifically on the idea of God changing what people are or are not allowed to do.  That He does change those can be proven form The Torah alone.

Before The Flood we weren't allowed to eat meat at all, not just certain meats, read Genesis 1 and 2 carefully.  After The Flood God gave Noah permission to eat animals.  We have this movement of people acting like it's insulting to The Torah to suggest a restriction on Pork could be lifted, but an even bigger restriction was lifted in Genesis.

God ordained Capital Punishment in Genesis 9, when in Genesis 4 he goes out of his way to protect Cain form being killed for his murder.  Now I believe it's disallowed again.

Abraham was married to his Sister and it wasn't a problem.  Adam and Eve's first children only had that option.  But brother-sister incest was condemned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  1 Corinthians 5 I feel shows that Incest restrictions still apply.  But that was not a purely ceremonial or cleanliness issue.

So yes Malachi says God doesn't change.  But the greater testimony of Scripture shows what is and isn't legal clearly is not what is meant by that.

The dietary laws are exactly the issue in Romans 14.  Where Paul goes on to explain not to judge someone either way on keeping or not keeping the dietary laws.

That is important. There is in response to people like Skiba, others, (like the pastor I do not name) who want to act like it's a Sin to keep any Jewish laws.  That is absurd, to suggest you can Sin by following Jesus example in observing Passover, Tabernacles and Hanukkah.  These people are the other side of the same coin.  So I've coined the phrase Reverse-Legalism.

As long as you're not under any delusion that it matters one way or the others to your Salvation keeping the Jewish laws is fine, imposing them on others is not.  Colossians 2:16 makes clear not to let any man judge us either way in regards to "meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."  Now the Reverse-Legalists will point to the next verse calling them mere shadows of things to come.  That does mean we don't have to keep them, but we can observe them as long as we remember that are fulfilled in Jesus.

Back to regular legalists, they engage in the Lexical fallacy by wanting to read 1 John 3:4 into every verse that uses the word Sin.

They also objects to the word legalist, saying it should only be used of Judaizers.  The word Judaizer I would only use of Judaizers, but I tend not to use it at all because I don't want to sound anti-semitic.
Legalism is an illness with three levels, each level can manifest differently.

The top level is believing the Law particularly circumcision is required for Salvation.  The Judaizers were top level.

Middle is thinking it's needed to keep salvation or to prove salvation, hence denying Eternal Security.  And I include "perseverance of the saints" as a denial of Eternal Security.

The low level is I think where Rob Skiba is, he's certainly not top level. Saying that the Law is needed for qualifying as a good faithful Christian.  That too is wrong, at the Bema Judgment we'll be judged based on our obedience to The Holy Spirit, not keeping a written law code, yes I mean even specific New Testament commands when I say that.

Low level can be harmless.  But I know people who started there and were in time lured into the higher more dangerous levels.

The Law of Moses was always imperfect.  Now it is done away with.  Jesus fulfilled the Law by living a perfectly sinful life.  Now the Law is written on our Hearts not in Stone.

As commander William Riker once said "When has Justice ever as simple as a rule book".

If The Holy Spirit is personally convicting you to do or not do something then you should listen.  But the Holy Spirit has different plans for each individual.  The Spirit convicts me often, but my enjoyment of Pork it doesn't convict.

Judaizers are not the only Legalists

So I watched a sermon from the pastor I don't like to name, where he was defending Christmas.  I agree essentially with what he was saying.  But he then went on to condemn celebrating Jewish Holy Days.

This reminded me of stuff I already covered slightly.

I know there is a Hebrew Roots movement out there calling for trying to put Christians back under the Law, and that is wrong.

But we also have counter to that a new kind of Legalisim, that says no matter what the reason it's a sin period for a Christian to get Circumscribed, or follow the dietary laws, or keep the Sabbath, or observe Jewish Holy Days.  All the passages they are drawing on for this are about Judiazers.

It's wrong to teach you need to follow The Law to obtain Salvation, or to keep Salvation, or to prove Salvation.  Or in my view even that it's needed to lead a good obedient rewarding Christina Life.  The Law is written on our Hearts now, it's between each individual and The Holy Spirit how he lives.

He started his Christmas sermon with Romans 14, I love Romans 14.  But he pretty much makes it sound like the specific context of Romans 14 is about Vegetarianism.  It's not, Romans 14 like most of what Paul was dealing with in Romans came down to disputes between the Jewish and Gentile Christians living in Rome.  It's about the dietary laws, he is saying it's ok to eat non kosher foods, and also ok not to.  But if EITHER side tries to judge the other that is wrong.

Colossians 2:16 is often misused.  "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"  It's saying let no one Judge you concerning them, but it gets taken as saying it's bad to observe them.

Zachariah 14 and Ezekiel 45 both show that the Holy Days and the Sabbath will be apart of the future when Jesus Reigns on Earth.  And I believe Ezekiel 40-48 is the New Creation not the Millennium.

Jesus we know during His life kept the Passover and Tabernacles, and Hanukkah.  No matter what your excuse, no matter what your view on The Law or dispensations is.  To say it's a Sin to do something Jesus did is absurd.

Now I also think it's wrong to require people to do anything Jesus did, especially for Salvation.  He lived a perfectly Sinless life FOR US so we don't have to.  But he did nothing that can be considered a Sin.

Acts references numerous times the Early Church observed Old Covenant customs.  I've spoken elsewhere against the Sunday replacing The Sabbath myth.

Also right after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 Paul goes and gets one of his new gentile converts circumcised.  Now that gets abused by Rob Skiba to say you don't need circumcision for Salvation but you still need to do it to obey God.  That is wrong, but it does show if someone wanted to purely for like it's health benefits to be circumscribed Paul was not gonna throw everything he said in Galatians at them.

This Pastor says that any holiday he celebrates is going to be about Jesus (though elsewhere in the Sermon he offhandedly mocks those calling Thanksgiving bad).

Messianic Jews and other Christians who keep the Jewish Holy Days make them about how they point to Jesus and The New Testament.  Because all Scripture points to Jesus.

During the Passover Seder they draw on how Jesus is the Passover Lamb, and tie that into Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, and I think Esther is more relevant to Passover then people realize.  And of course they quote from The Last Supper.  On First Fruits they are reminded how Paul called Jesus our First Fruits.  On Shavout they talk about Acts 2 and the end of Joel 2, to me Revelation 6 and 7 should also be thrown in.

Basically the Nisan Holy Days are when we should be observing the "Easter" Holy Week, and the Feast of Weeks (Shavout) when we should observe Pentacost, (Karaite reckoning rather then Rabbinic) as opposed to the convoluted Catholic reckoning.  Still I would not call it a Sin to observe them on the Catholic dates (or Rabbinic reckoning, or the Samaritan one for that matter), since we're not bound by the Law at all anyway, commemorating the Passion is good even if it's not actually on the right day.  But the Pagan traditions that filtered into it (including the name "Easter" itself, we should call it Resurrection Sunday and/or First Fruits) like the Bunny and the Eggs I would recommend dropping.

If one wants to adapt them to our modern Solar Calendar for convenience sake but not using the Catholic method.  First I'd say still begin each day the previous Sunset.

My recommendation would be to have April 6th (or the Thursday closest to it) function as the 14th of Nisan, with the previous Sunday (or April 2nd) as Palm Sunday/The Triumphal Entry and the following Sunday as Resurrection Sunday/First Fruits.  Then the Sunday 7 weeks from First Fruits would be Pentecost and the Thursday a week and a half before that Ascension Thursday.  And if you wanna do something for Second Passover that'd be May 6th.  March 6th would be the fast of Esther, the 7th and 8th would be Purim and the 10th Yom Adar.  And the New Year would be March 24th.  And the last day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 21) would be April 13th.

An alternative method would be to make Nisan 14 equal March 25th and Nisan 17 equal March 25th, I actually like using those days for The Annunciation and the Visitation.  Along with June 24th or 25th for the Birth of John The Baptist and the Summer Solstice for the marriage of Mary and Joseph.

If one wants a similar adaptation to our Calendar for the Tishri Holy Days.  Simply having September equal Tishri can be convenient, since September literally means 7th month.  But if you want Hanukkah to fall on Christmas then you'd rather have October be Tishri.  People who support a September 11th 3 BC birth of Jesus have reason to make that day the first of Tishri.  I however believe between the Yom Kippur and Tabernacles following that is when John The Baptist was conceived (Sunset September 20th to Sunset September 24th).  I have an eschatological hypothesis that involves Yom Teruh being Sunset September 25th to sunset September 26th in 2033 AD.

The Fall Feast Days tend to be viewed as Eschatological in how they apply to Jesus.  I think The Rapture is very relevant to the Feast of Trumpets and maybe also Yom Kippur.  The 7th Trumpet will sound on Tishri 1st I believe, and Yom Kippur may be the Bema Judgment as well as much later the White Throne Judgment, and I see Tabernacles as when New Jerusalem will descend.

But Tabernacles could also be just a good excuse to read John 7, and I think 8, 9 and the beginning of 10 were on Tishri 22.  I also think the First of Tishi was when the Star of Bethlehem was first observed, But the Magi arrived in Jerusalem a year and three months later.  I think Yom Kippur is possibly the day Gabriel appeared to Zachariah.  But at the very least it's a great time to talk about the significance of The Veil being torn when Jesus was on The Cross.  Many of course look to the Tishri Holy Days for the Birth of Jesus, but I don't anymore.

Some also think the Transfiguration happened on Tabernacles, I do not believe that chronologically works.  But seeing a thematic connection to Tabernacles is still valid.

Purim can be used as a great time to show how the Book of Esther points to Jesus.  Mordecai was honored and Haman hanged on the 17th of Nisan, the same day as The Resurrection.  And I've talked about the significance in Haman and his sons technically dying the same way Jesus did.

Of course he doubles down on Hanukkah saying it isn't even ordained in the Old Testament.  I have refuted that notion elsewhere too.

How does one make Hanukkah about Jesus?  Those who say Jesus was born on a Fall Feast Day often place His Conception during Hanukkah (first of Tevet most likely) making that the time of the Annunciation and Visitation, I supported that in the past but not anymore.  Some who are among the minority defending the traditional date for Christmas think Jesus was born during Hanukkah.  I however have argued that the December 25th Jesus was born on was late in Tevet.  That would make it one of those years where Hanukkah fell near Thanksgiving.  There is evidence the early origin of Thanksgiving (which was not originally in November) was The Pilgrims observing a form of Tabernacles.  And Hanukkah has been called a sort of Second Tabernacles based on 2 Maccabees 10:1-8.  1 Maccabees 4:44-59 does talk about "Sacrifices and Thanksgivings" being offered in some translations.

At the very least Hanukkah can be a good excuse to get people to read John 10.  Many also seeing how it revolves around The Menorah (being often called The Festival of Lights) as a good time to talk about all the New Testament symbolism it has, the 7 Lamp stands surrounding The Throne in Revelation 4, the Seven Fold Spirit.  As well as Jesus being the Light of The World.

Hanukkah is about history that we know is a type of the End Times, Antiochus Epiphanes is a type of The Antichrist.  So it's a good prompter to studying Bible Prophecy.

Oh, that's right, this Pastor had in another Sermon ranted on how he rejects the notion of Antiochus Epiphanes having anything to do with Daniel, people like him are the straw-man Preterists cling to to make all Futurists look bad.

His logic was that you shouldn't have to read anything else to understand The Bible.  Only The Bible is God's Word, but part of the purpose of Prophecy is to authenticate God's Word, therefore proving from secular historical documentation that Bible Prophecies have been fulfilled is vital.

But showing his hypocrisy again he brings his understanding of New World Order conspiracy theories into his view of Bible Prophecy, a lot of extra Biblical sources are needed to make that work.

Tokens of Virginity

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is a passage I had struggled with recently, but not so much anymore.

It is today a well documented scientific fact that the whole notion that a woman is supposed to bleed the first time she has sex is a myth.  Just do some basic web searches on the subject and you'll find many articles on it.  Sometimes women bleed when they have sex whether a virgin or not, often that can be a sign of something medically wrong, but other times just from being nervous.

In addition to all the biology I can't explain well, they mention how because of this prevailing myth many girls on their wedding night snuck in either a razor of some animal blood to put on the sheets in-case they didn't bleed.

These articles however tend not to be kind to Deuteronomy 22 if it comes up.

Sadly many Fundamentalist Christians feel the need to still believe this myth, and teach doctrines about Marriage being a "Blood Covenant", and tying it into the Bride of Christ doctrine saying at that wedding it'll be the Groom's Blood on the sheets.

But there is no Biblical basis for calling marriage a Blood Covenant.  More then one witness is needed to build doctrine, and Deuteronomy 22 is in fact the only place in the entire Bible this myth seems to be acknowledged much less endorsed.

The Song of Solomon is the one book that's entirely about Sex and Marriage.  The consummation happens in chapter 4, if I'm understanding it correctly.  But the entire book never references blood at all, no occurrences of the words blood, bleed, bled, bleeding, or any related words.  And yes I am going off the KJV for that.  Same with Psalm 45 that many see as linked to the Song of Solomon.

Blood is a major theme in The Bible, and I agree with the KJV onliers who consider one of the many reasons modern Bibles are bad to be how many occurrences of the word Blood they remove.  The Blood of Jesus is at the heart of The Bible's message. So for any entire book to have no references to Blood at all, and for it be 8 chapters, not one of the really short ones that often fit on one page, I consider quite significant.

Also the words Virgin and Blood never occur in the same verse.

Why is this in Deuteronomy 22?  First of all The Law of Moses was imperfect.  God allowed certain things He didn't really like like Slavery because Human society was simply not ready to reject them.

As I said, most women throughout history made sure they had Bloody sheets regardless, and God knew that.  I'm willing to bet no woman was ever actually killed or convicted by this law.

And it's notable in that context that it allows no wiggle room for the husband to suggest that the bloody sheets are fraudulent.  The evidence is provided by the very family he's seeking to slander and the option of questioning it isn't provided.  The intent here is really to protect the women.

I think this is here somewhat as a formality even, how likely is it this would even happen?  Why would a husband try this when he knows his wife's father has the sheets?  And if he knows there were no sheets why wait so long to decide he cares?

As far as other reasons why people criticize this part of Deuteronomy 22.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/brideslander.php
I actually exchanged some emails with the author of this, when I was still struggling with this subject.

It's a much larger myth that the passage indicates that a woman is "supposed" to bleed at that time.

Ancient law codes like Deuteronomy were didactic, or case law. They gave typical examples.  

So if for some reason a woman did not bleed after her first sexual encounter, that would be brought up in any proceeding and considered.

I still felt that was inadequate however, he still seemed unaware that it is scientifically atypical if she does bleed.  If this wasn't happening right after the wedding night, the proceeding would certainly question why the husband didn't care till now.  But if it was happening right away the concern people have is the woman wouldn't be believed.  But what I have now come to is that in-spite of how it looks nothing in this chapter or any other Bible passage actually says a woman will bleed.

(Update Edit: He says in a new email he did understand.)

At any-rate many Bible critics don't even get that the lack of Virginity itself isn't what makes this hypothetical crime a potentially capital offense, that is addressed later.  It's the lying about it.

Now to many Feminists the very concept of Virginity exists only because of this broken hymen myth.  So they feel The Bible endorses it by even using the word at all.  It's mostly a modern thing in the post enlightenment world to try to define Virginity purely clinically.

The concept of Virginity need not require a physical change, it's just a term that means a lack of a certain kind of sexual experience.

What's viewed as sexist is that until very recently only women were perceived as losing something when they have sex.  And The Bible in the Old Testament is kind of consistent with that.

Ancient law codes like the Law of Moses were more cornered with the sexual chastity of women because of how reproduction works, you're always certain who the mother is, certainty of who the father is is dependent on the wife's fidelity.  It's unfair but that's how it works.  In the modern world we can fortunately do DNA tests.

The other major reason why Female Virginity is so important in Scripture is for The Doctrine of The Virgin Birth.  The purpose of which is only to demonstrate the Supernal nature of the Incarnation, it is not all to suggest a only a Virgin would worthy to bear The Messiah.

But is male virginity really completely unheard of in The Bible?  Revelation 14 says poetically/symbolically of the 144,000 in verse 4

These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

I do not agree with the view that there are no women in this group because I tie the 144,000 into the end of Joel 2 and Pentecost in Acts 2, where there are Sons and Daughters.  But the grammar is rare for The Bible in defining virgins as people who haven't had sex with women.  But this isn't a literal verse, it's describing Resurrected believers, you do not need to be an actual virgin whether male or female to qualify.

In the study where I defend that the word Almah mean Virgin, I point out there there is a rare masculine form of Almah used twice in 1 Samuel of unmarried young men.

"Yea, hath God said" and the preferences of Satan

I'm sure you've often seen during a debate with a very "Traditionally" conservative Christian.  A person will question if The Bible was actually making such a broad and absolute condemnation as we assume, and the "conservative" will point out that "Yea, hath God said" are the first words The Serpent utters in Genesis 3:1, as proof that questioning how strict God is is somehow obviously Satan's favorite tactic.

This is textbook out of context quoting.  Regardless of the inquisitive form of that phrase, the Serpent absolutely did want Eve to believe God didn't want her doing what he was trying to convince her to do.

You see what the Serpent says after that, the statement he attributes to God, is in fact something God did not say.

Let's go back to Genesis 2:16-17 where the actual command from God the Serpent wants Eve to break is said to Adam, let's quote God's exact words from The KJV.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Now in Chapter 3 the Serpent says to the Woman.

"Yea, hath God said, "Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?""

See the difference?  Thing is you could argue he gave a technically accurate representation of what the command was, but the tone is changed. God emphasized there was plenty Adam could eat, just one singular isolated tree he was not to eat.  The Serpent wants to make God seem less permissive, to make his restrictions seem broader then they actually are.

The Woman's response also played into The Serpent's hands.

"We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.""

 See that? God's Word was added to.  Was it because Adam taught her incorrectly (The Woman was created after the command was given) or was she herself making it stricter for fear of breaking it.  Or was it a little of both?  We don't know for certain, a view that Adam taught her wrong is perhaps backed up by how NT references back to this blame Adam alone for what happened.  But it's ultimately conjecture.

Point is, once again the misquoting of God makes God seem more restrictive not less.  And I've seen Bible teachers point out the significance of the "neither shall ye touch it" not being what God said, yet when on a different part of Scripture, they'll encourage the same attitude, saying the commands against drunkenness mean don't even walk into a bar, and so on.

In that movie about Johnny Cash called Walk The Line, there is a scene where one of Johnny's Christian friends judging him is actually referencing Genesis 2-3 and doing exactly what Eve did, completely oblivious.  I found it really funny and I'm not even certain the writers knew what they did there.

Satan was deceiving Eve, but the deception was about the reason it's a Sin not about making her think something is not a Sin.

And the serpent said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

By making God's command seem more restrictive, he made it seem unreasonable, which in turn made God seem afraid of something, which in turn made him seem like an @$$hole.

Once in a fallen world a lot more things are forbidden to us.  But the Torah also makes clear sinning in ignorance of The Law is not nearly as bad as sinning knowingly, still bad, but not as bad, because Sins made in ignorance can be paid for by the Sin Offering, while knowing Sins require more.  So Satan prefers to get people to do the worse option.

His Temptation of Jesus was not I believe typical of his usual strategy, he needed to do anything to make Jesus no longer a Spotless Lamb.  But even there only one of the three temptations (the first) seems to be based on trying to trick him into doing something unlawful by playing with technicalities.  The second is seemingly a dare to prove Who He Is and the third had no false pretense at all.

Jesus spent his ministry condemning the Scribes and Pharisees for their overly strict interpretations of Laws like the Sabbath, and adding none Biblical Laws called Traditions.  Only on Divorce does he object to them allowing something he felt they shouldn't allow.

In Matthew 23 He says of them "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.".  This is in contrast to Himself in Chapter 11:28-30.  "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

So when I get told that I'm the one trying to pervert Christianity into what Satan wants it to be by promoting more "permissive" interpretations of Moral Law on issues like Sexuality.  I mostly just laugh and wonder what Bible they read.

Paul said "all things are permissible to me but not all things are beneficial" in 1 Corinthians 6.  The Law is now written on our Hearts not in Stone.

There are false belief systems out there built around saying people should do (Biblically) indisputably sinful things.  But they are mostly, (especially the ones that are successful enough to make me suspect Satan is putting particular effort into them) predicated on Rebellion against The Judeo-Christian God.  They have no desire to deny The Bible condemns those things, and it suits them in-fact to claim the Bible condemns things it doesn't.  Mostly these are different forms of Satanism.

The major heretical Judeo-Christian religions, whatever their heresies on Theology and Soterology are, all have in common on Morality wanting to increase not decrease what is Sinfull.  The Catholic Church doesn't want Priests marrying and many other rules, JWs want people paranoid about Blood Transfusions.  Mormons put Coffee in the same category as Alcohol and hard Drugs.  Rabbinic Judaism makes the command to "not boil a kid in it's mother milk" a condemnation of Cheese Burgers.  And you know I even consider Islam with it's over the top prudishness and legalism a form of heretical Christianity.  They see Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, their denial of his Divinity is not unlike the Ebonites and other early Jewish-Christian heretics.  All this shows me Satan wants the God of Abraham to seem strict.

The Christian sects that do take an anything goes approach (to the left of even my morality) are very small fringe groups without a lot of mainstream influence.  I actually don't think every false religion has Satan's personal endorsement, the fallen human mind can come up with bad ideas perfectly fine on our own.

Even major false religions and philosophical systems that have no claim of Biblical roots can also tend toward Legalism.  A recent example would be the Atheistic Straight Edge movement affiliated with pro-wrestler CM Punk (in his Face persona he's like most people in the movement, a perfectly like-able human being, but as a Heel he is a demonstration of how judgmental they can become).   The end result is the same, if people think living a Moral life is really difficult they will give up on trying to.

We've been conditioned to think Pagan=Anything goes especially on Sex.  Neo-Pagan sub-cultures in the West where the mainstream default religion is nominally Christian, tend towards being socially Liberal because they attract people who in some way want to rebel against society.  But even most of these have more Morality then people give them credit for.

I've already spoken of how Rome was contrary to popular imagination a very Socially Conservative culture.  I will talk in the Future about Greek Philosophy.  Japan is also a Pagan culture that is pretty Socially Conservative in it's own way.

On a few select issues Christianity has been tricked by Satan into being OK with things we should have condemned.  Like Slavery/Segregation, Anti-Semitism, Rape victim blaming, imperialism/neo-con foreign policy.  All these serve the same purpose as much of the Legalism however, alienating people from the Gospel and those who know it.  And tend to be tied to something those same Christians do condemn (rightly or wrongly).

Today I feel homophobia and Capital Punishment are at the top of the list of things serving that purpose.  To a Homosexual or Bisexual person their Gayness is part of who they are, not just something they do.  So my fellow Evangelicals even if you insist on still viewing those things as Sins at least avoid the topic while evangelizing.

A lot of False Religions are trying to appeal to LGBT individuals.  I've seen websites for Satanic groups bragging about the Gay Marriages they perform.  And even the Catholic Church looks like it may be trying to appeal to them under Pope Francis.  (Thanks to the Catholic Church accepting Evolution, Evangelicals are inclined to see them doing anything as proof it's wrong).  And there are plenty other Neo-Pagan examples.

However for all the reaching out to Homsexuals in some Occult circles, the Neo-Pagan/Wiccan movement has it's own Homophobia.

I think Christians need to stop simply thinking "if the world is promoting it, it must be wrong" and realize that Satan wants to reach out to exactly those who feel alienated by The Church.

When Blacks were enslaved by professing Christians he created Vodoo to appeal to them, fortunately many didn't fall for that and identified with the Exodus narrative.  During Segregation he created the Nation of Islam and the Five Percenters.  To appeal to women who feel alienated by the Patriarchal norms of traditional Christianity he has feminist and matriarchal themed religions like Wicca, as well as the Aristasia sub-culture, which is another example of a very socially conservative Pagan belief system.

Today he's doing the same thing to reach out to LGBT people.  And we play into his hands when we push them away.

The Democratic Party and other institutions of the political left want to use the LGBT community as political pawns same as they do blacks and other minorities and feminists.  And the same as the Republican party uses Christians and Gun owners.  None of that I see as real true authentic support.