"Torah Observant"

[annsni]

What can you tell me about this? There's a woman on another site that I go to that just said that she is "Torah Observant" and she will be explaining more about it. I already said that I don't know how someone can be bound to the law after reading Romans but we'll see what she says.

Any resources you know of? I found this site http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Torah_Observance/torah_observance.html that looks good but I'd love any other good sites you can direct me towards.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

This seems primarily (but not exclusively) geared toward Jewish believers. See www.about-torah.org and http://www.ctomc.ca for additional websites.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ive seen Presbyterian Jewdisers

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Ive seen Presbyterian Jewdisers

I think the term is "Judaizers." In any event, not sure what you mean on this.

 

[annsni]

See, the lady is saying that as Christians, if we do not follow the law, we are being disobedient. That God is the same and doesn't change and He set the law in place and so we should follow it. I've posted a few things and I just don't see how you can read the New Testament at all and come up with needing to be Torah observant!!

I was just looking for some resources that might address it but so far it's easy enough to just use the Scriptures to discuss with her.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

See, the lady is saying that as Christians, if we do not follow the law, we are being disobedient. That God is the same and doesn't change and He set the law in place and so we should follow it. I've posted a few things and I just don't see how you can read the New Testament at all and come up with needing to be Torah observant!!

I was just looking for some resources that might address it but so far it's easy enough to just use the Scriptures to discuss with her.

I've searched and the sight you listed is the only one I've found that addresses it.

I have a friend who attends a church (prefer not to list the denomination) that has an Israeli flag up front along with the USA flag and the Christian flag. When I asked her about it, she replied that we as Christians should support Israel. At that church, they also celebrate some of the Jewish feasts as well -- though I wouldn't call her or them Torah Observant - just a bit odd.

 

[Dr. Walter]

See, the lady is saying that as Christians, if we do not follow the law, we are being disobedient. That God is the same and doesn't change and He set the law in place and so we should follow it. I've posted a few things and I just don't see how you can read the New Testament at all and come up with needing to be Torah observant!!

I was just looking for some resources that might address it but so far it's easy enough to just use the Scriptures to discuss with her.

What you are describing is the common feature of those who identify themselves as "Messanic Jews" in distinction from "Christians."

They believe that as "Jews" they are still subject to keeping the Feasts in Leviticus 23 and observing Saturday Sabbath and other Mosaic laws.

I suggest you look up the terms "Messanic Jews" and you will find lots and lots of these type of people under that title.

http://www.yrm.org/biblical_feasts.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jewish_theology

They vary between themselves on some subjects but generally agree on keeping the Leviticual Feasts and other aspects of Mosaic Law because they see themselves as JEWS and not as GENTILE Christians. They have a double standard under Christianity and refuse to see that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ.

 

[annsni]

What you are describing is the common feature of those who identify themselves as "Messanic Jews" in distinction from "Christians."

They believe that as "Jews" they are still subject to keeping the Feasts in Leviticus 23 and observing Saturday Sabbath and other Mosaic laws.

I suggest you look up the terms "Messanic Jews" and you will find lots and lots of these type of people under that title.

http://www.yrm.org/biblical_feasts.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jewish_theology

They vary between themselves on some subjects but generally agree on keeping the Leviticual Feasts and other aspects of Mosaic Law because they see themselves as JEWS and not as GENTILE Christians. They have a double standard under Christianity and refuse to see that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ.

Thank you Dr. Walter. I'll look that up.

One thing she got hung up on was the law being "fulfilled". She felt that means we toss it out, we say that it is not thrown out but it is finished. She just couldn't get it and continued to say that she follows the WHOLE Bible. :BangHead:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Thank you Dr. Walter. I'll look that up.

One thing she got hung up on was the law being "fulfilled". She felt that means we toss it out, we say that it is not thrown out but it is finished. She just couldn't get it and continued to say that she follows the WHOLE Bible. :BangHead:

Perhaps you could ask how her obedience "fulfills" what is demanded by the Law?

Or perhaps you could ask her how Christ's obedience "fulfills" what the law demands in comparison to her obedience "fulfills" what the law demands?

You might ask her what purpose does the Law provide? Why did God give the Law?

I think you see the point I am getting at?

 

[annsni]

Perhaps you could ask how her obedience "fulfills" what is demanded by the Law?

Or perhaps you could ask her how Christ's obedience "fulfills" what the law demands in comparison to her obedience "fulfills" what the law demands?

You might ask her what purpose does the Law provide? Why did God give the Law?

I think you see the point I am getting at?

GREAT questions! Thanks!!

 

[preacher4truth]

I know of one who in particular holds to this same view. According to him, once a person knows to only use the true name of God, and of Christ, but still uses the terms "Lord" instead is in error, and failure to change this stance proves one to be lost. Thus the several versions of Scriptures that change the Name from Lord to YWHW &c come from this view. (i.e. Restored Names KJV; RNKJV)

 

[Dr. Walter]

I know of one who in particular holds to this same view. According to him, once a person knows to only use the true name of God, and of Christ, but still uses the terms "Lord" instead is in error, and failure to change this stance proves one to be lost. Thus the several versions of Scriptures that change the Name from Lord to YWHW &c come from this view. (i.e. Restored Names KJV; RNKJV)

Yes, all those within this JEWISH movement refrain from using the name "jesus" but rather resort to the Hebrew term "Yeshua" as though that makes the hebrew superior to the Greek. They do have a Gnostic superority complex about them. In essence, they reject the New Testament because they believe it was given to Gentile Christians rather than to Jewish Christians.

This is basically the Galatian error arising anew.

 

[preacher4truth]

Yes, all those within this JEWISH movement refrain from using the name "jesus" but rather resort to the Hebrew term "Yeshua" as though that makes the hebrew superior to the Greek. They do have a Gnostic superority complex about them. In essence, they reject the New Testament because they believe it was given to Gentile Christians rather than to Jewish Christians.

This is basically the Galatian error arising anew.

I see. This certain man has stated that if I now know what to do with the Name, and do not do this, then there is no salvation. He also stated that it is "knowledge" that saves. Severely Gnostic for sure.

 

[Gina B]

What you are describing is the common feature of those who identify themselves as "Messanic Jews" in distinction from "Christians."

They believe that as "Jews" they are still subject to keeping the Feasts in Leviticus 23 and observing Saturday Sabbath and other Mosaic laws.

I suggest you look up the terms "Messanic Jews" and you will find lots and lots of these type of people under that title.

http://www.yrm.org/biblical_feasts.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jewish_theology

They vary between themselves on some subjects but generally agree on keeping the Leviticual Feasts and other aspects of Mosaic Law because they see themselves as JEWS and not as GENTILE Christians. They have a double standard under Christianity and refuse to see that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ.

Hold your horsies there! My home church and the one I and my family committed to is Baptist, but I attend Messianic services on Saturdays because I need the extra boost and want to keep my kids in touch with their heritage.

We do NOT believe one *has* to observe the holidays. We do NOT believe that the Gentiles who come in are any different, there's great diversity in those who attend and in fact, one of the regular songs praises God for united Jews and Gentiles under one faith. One family.

We observe the holy days as a beautiful tradition that showed those who came before us what was to come and a deeply meaningful way of physically reminding us how those promises were brought into fullness and we now under grace and no longer bound to those laws, but freed through the grace of God through Jesus Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hi Gena!

Hold your horsies there! My home church and the one I and my family committed to is Baptist, but I attend Messianic services on Saturdays because I need the extra boost and want to keep my kids in touch with their heritage.

As I said, there are some very strong differences among them. If you will look up "Messanic Jews" you will see this.

Our "heritiage" as "Christians" is not rooted in Judaism but in New Testament Christianity. For example there is no example of New Testament congregations meeting for worship services on Saturday but there is plenty of New Testament example for Sunday worship (Acts 2:1; 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:7). No "Saturday" heritage. Paul met in the Jewish Synogogue on Saturday to evangelize the Jews but no congregation met on Saturdays.

We do NOT believe one *has* to observe the holidays. We observe the holy days as a beautiful tradition that showed those who came before us what was to come and a deeply meaningful way of physically reminding us how those promises were brought into fullness and we now under grace and no longer bound to those laws, but freed through the grace of God through Jesus Christ.

Why practice something that is antithetical to grace in order to magnify grace? Is not that the same practice that Paul objects to in Romans 6:1 - Shall we sin that grace may abound??? His answer is God forbid! Isn't practicing such going backwards rather than forward??

There is no Christian "heritage" in observing the "Feasts days" as there are no examples of New Testament congregations observing the Feasts of Levitius 23. Indeed, Paul rebukes the congregations of Galatia for observing such things:

9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

The feasts of Leviticus 23 have been SUPERSEDED by the Lord's Supper and baptism under the New Covenant and to practice those feasts is a rejection of the New Covenant as they are not parallel observances with the Lord's Supper and baptism under the NEW covenant as the NEW covenant does not incoporate OLD covenant practices.

Also, why identify themselves under "Jewish" terms when the New Covenant congregations did no such thing? Such a practice would not only be divisive but actually an attack upon the neutrality of Christ's congregations when it comes to ethnic identification:

"There is NEITHER Jew or Gentile" the Apostle says so why make that ETHNIC distinction in the way the congregation is named or classified?

 

[Eric B]

It's true that there has been a sort of runaway movement going back to the total Law. It started with a few people, arguing for a "forgotten Commandment" among the Ten. All the rest of the church was then regarded as in "disobedience", and even paganism. (And the dietary laws became tacked on to this as well). But then, some people decide to add the Passover (Nisan 14th). Then, people come out of them arguing for all seven of the annual feasts. Then, sacred names. (Meanwhile, the Godhead is gradually shrinking also, down to two, and then, among some, one, just like in Judaism). Then, specific details about the feasts and names. With some out there, maybe even circumcision!

So while it is a good tradition to honor, we must be careful that we are not falling back into the Law. Paul even warns someone that if he goes through with that circumcision, he's in effect rejecting Christ. While another person, he encouraged to have the circumcision. It all depends on what the practice is being used for.

On the other hand, I disagree with those who completely reject the Judaical practices as necessarily "looking backwards". Why are Christianized gentile practices like Sunday and Easter specifically "forward"? All you're doing is switching days, and this was done by the later Church, not the NT (even though people think they see some evidence in certain scriptures; there is clearly no command to substitute those days).

 

[Dr. Walter]

It's true that there has been a sort of runaway movement going back to the total Law. It started with a few people, arguing for a "forgotten Commandment" among the Ten. All the rest of the church was then regarded as in "disobedience", and even paganism. (And the dietary laws became tacked on to this as well). But then, some people decide to add the Passover (Nisan 14th). Then, people come out of them arguing for all seven of the annual feasts. Then, sacred names. (Meanwhile, the Godhead is gradually shrinking also, down to two, and then, among some, one, just like in Judaism). Then, specific details about the feasts and names. With some out there, maybe even circumcision!

So while it is a good tradition to honor, we must be careful that we are not falling back into the Law. Paul even warns someone that if he goes through with that circumcision, he's in effect rejecting Christ. While another person, he encouraged to have the circumcision. It all depends on what the practice is being used for.

Any good research on the internet will back up the progression toward law keeping that you have stated. Of course Paul wanted Timothy to be circumcised because his mother was Jewish and it would make him acceptable for the Jews to listen to him and thus make him a more effective tool to spread the gospel. On the other hand Paul told Titus, a gentile, he should not submit to circumcision because that would in affect to be understood that Gentiles must become Jews in order to be saved. Hence, in both cases it relates to the effectiveness of the gospel.

On the other hand, I disagree with those who completely reject the Judaical practices as necessarily "looking backwards". Why are Christianized gentile practices like Sunday and Easter specifically "forward"? All you're doing is switching days, and this was done by the later Church, not the NT (even though people think they see some evidence in certain scriptures; there is clearly no command to substitute those days).

I totally disagree with you here. There is plenty of Biblical evidence to demonstrate that early New Testament Christianity assembled for worship on the first day of the week (Acts 2:1; 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:7). There is sufficient testimony from within the FIRST century all the way to the fourth century that this was the universal custom based upon the universal belief that Christ rose on the first day of the week. There is suffient evidence in John 20 that Jesus Himself habitually met with the disciples on the first day of the week.

There are scriptures that clearly teach a change from the Old Testament Sabbath day to a new and better day (Psa. 118:20-24 with Acts 4:10-11; Mark 16:9; Heb. 4:9-10 and especially the understanding and usage of "kuriakos" in Rev. 1:7).

The New Covenant provided a NEW house of Worship - the church

The New Covenant provided NEW ordinances - baptism and the Lord's Supper

The New Covenant provided a NEW day of worship - first day of the week

The New Covenant provided NEW officers - apostles, Pastors, deacons

Resorting back to the OLD covenant and THE SIGN of the OLD Covenant (the seventh day Sabbath) is to reject the New Covenant and that is the message of Hebrews and Galatians.

Paul explicitly states that the Old Covenant Sabbatical system has been done away with - Col. 2:16.

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 ¶ 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:

After Moses destroyed the only law given to Israel not written by man but by God Himself, he was then commanded to WRITE the law Himself and so the whole Mosaic law was done by Moses and was the "handwriting of ordinances" found in Leviticus through Deuteronomy.

I believe that the WHOLE Law as it is included in the OLD Covenant has been abolished. Of course the Law of God regarded as moral and ethical principle is eternal but regarded as a COVENANT practice it is abolished. Messanic Christians are trying to revive the PRACTICE and that violates and is in practice a repudiation of the New Covenant.

 

[Eric B]

I totally disagree with you here. There is plenty of Biblical evidence to demonstrate that early New Testament Christianity assembled for worship on the first day of the week (Acts 2:1; 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:7). There is sufficient testimony from within the FIRST century all the way to the fourth century that this was the universal custom based upon the universal belief that Christ rose on the first day of the week. There is suffient evidence in John 20 that Jesus Himself habitually met with the disciples on the first day of the week.

There are scriptures that clearly teach a change from the Old Testament Sabbath day to a new and better day (Psa. 118:20-24 with Acts 4:10-11; Mark 16:9; Heb. 4:9-10 and especially the understanding and usage of "kuriakos" in Rev. 1:7).

The New Covenant provided a NEW house of Worship - the church

The New Covenant provided NEW ordinances - baptism and the Lord's Supper

The New Covenant provided a NEW day of worship - first day of the week

The New Covenant provided NEW officers - apostles, Pastors, deacons

Resorting back to the OLD covenant and THE SIGN of the OLD Covenant (the seventh day Sabbath) is to reject the New Covenant and that is the message of Hebrews and Galatians.

Paul explicitly states that the Old Covenant Sabbatical system has been done away with - Col. 2:16.

Sorry, but those are just "proof-texts", and do not exegete themselves into the developed "system" that you and traditional scholarship indicate.

Acts 2:1 mentions Pentecosts, which was one of the Jewish festivals. People argue about it being on Sunday, but that is not verified. It actually depends on the reckoning of which sabbath (weekly or annual) the count to Pentecost from the wave sheaf offering day begins. The Sadducees favored sunday, after the weekly sabbath, while the Pharisees favored different days, following the annual sabbath (the first day of unleavened bread). the Sadducees may have had some authority at the time, but Jesus says the Pharisees were the ones who had the practices right. The Sadducees, as we can see in other areas, were heterodox.

And on that, the Ps.118 argument would fall. (And acts 4, which you tacked onto it, also does not interpret that as a "new weekly worship day".

20:7 mentions the day of the week in passing. It does not say it was a "sunday worship service replacing the weekly sabbath".

1 Cor. is also a passing reference, and does not mention any new "day of worship".

Rev. 1:7 also does not mention any new weekly day of worship, and many believe it might simply be another reference to "the Day of the Lord", which is the only "day" said to be "possessed"by the Lord like that (other than the sabbath in the Old Testament).
Just look at the context. Why would the day he was having the prophecy on matter? (Unless you're some sort of old time charismatic who believes a person can only be "in the spirit" "in the Lord's House on the Lord's Day" or something).
There is also the same ambiguity with other early references interpreted as a "day", such as Ignatius, and the Didache. I believe Justin is the first to clearly indicate a specific day.

Mark's resurrection account also doesn't say anything about a new day being made from it.
John 20:26 "after eight days", is also taken to prove the disciples were now "observing" a "regular weekly Sunday worship". CONTEXT! Why would they be "celebrating" the resurrection when they were only just discovering it, and some were still slow to believe in it?

Heb.4 does argue against the literal sabbath by showing the "rest" is spiritual. It does not push for a different day, which would misunderstand it just as much as the sabbatarian insistence it is a literal day. (And it doesn't say that Jesus assembled them there to start a new day of worship, either).

When you see weekly references like this, remember, they were still Jews; they were not throwing off everything Jewish instantly like that, so their week was still framed around the Sabbath. So when the sabbath is over, it is the first day of the week, and that is when regular activities in their lives resume. THAT is why it gets mentioned the way it does. Nowhere is it ever said to be a replacement of the sabbath. It was the later church that interpreted it that way. Along with the emerging interpretations of the ordinances, officers, the institution of the Church, etc. which most of us reject.

You're probably seen some of the old debates with Bob Ryan, and the sabbathkeepers are able to find the same sort of "proofs"-by-implication for the sabbath in the same books (Acts, etc) and more.

If the sabbath was still mandatory, then NT scriptures would come out and clearly say it, and if the day was switched to Sunday, then the NT scriptures would come out and clearly say it.
The new house of worship, ordinances and officers are clearly, directly mentioned in the NT.

No need for this "piece together the puzzle" approach. All this proves, is what Col. 2:16 really says. (How could you even take that as a proof of mandatory Sunday, when that is one of the prime verses used against mandatory Sabbath? They both stand or fall together, there!)

 

[Dr. Walter]

I am at fault for side tracking the subject of this thread and apologize for doing so. I will be glad to take up your objections one by one if you want to open a new thread. If you want an exegetical basis for my statements I will be more than happy to oblige.

Sorry, but those are just "proof-texts", and do not exegete themselves into the developed "system" that you and traditional scholarship indicate.

Acts 2:1 mentions Pentecosts, which was one of the Jewish festivals. People argue about it being on Sunday, but that is not verified. It actually depends on the reckoning of which sabbath (weekly or annual) the count to Pentecost from the wave sheaf offering day begins. The Sadducees favored sunday, after the weekly sabbath, while the Pharisees favored different days, following the annual sabbath (the first day of unleavened bread). the Sadducees may have had some authority at the time, but Jesus says the Pharisees were the ones who had the practices right. The Sadducees, as we can see in other areas, were heterodox.

And on that, the Ps.118 argument would fall. (And acts 4, which you tacked onto it, also does not interpret that as a "new weekly worship day".

20:7 mentions the day of the week in passing. It does not say it was a "sunday worship service replacing the weekly sabbath".

1 Cor. is also a passing reference, and does not mention any new "day of worship".

Rev. 1:7 also does not mention any new weekly day of worship, and many believe it might simply be another reference to "the Day of the Lord", which is the only "day" said to be "possessed"by the Lord like that (other than the sabbath in the Old Testament).
Just look at the context. Why would the day he was having the prophecy on matter? (Unless you're some sort of old time charismatic who believes a person can only be "in the spirit" "in the Lord's House on the Lord's Day" or something).
There is also the same ambiguity with other early references interpreted as a "day", such as Ignatius, and the Didache. I believe Justin is the first to clearly indicate a specific day.

Mark's resurrection account also doesn't say anything about a new day being made from it.
John 20:26 "after eight days", is also taken to prove the disciples were now "observing" a "regular weekly Sunday worship". CONTEXT! Why would they be "celebrating" the resurrection when they were only just discovering it, and some were still slow to believe in it?

Heb.4 does argue against the literal sabbath by showing the "rest" is spiritual. It does not push for a different day, which would misunderstand it just as much as the sabbatarian insistence it is a literal day. (And it doesn't say that Jesus assembled them there to start a new day of worship, either).

When you see weekly references like this, remember, they were still Jews; they were not throwing off everything Jewish instantly like that, so their week was still framed around the Sabbath. So when the sabbath is over, it is the first day of the week, and that is when regular activities in their lives resume. THAT is why it gets mentioned the way it does. Nowhere is it ever said to be a replacement of the sabbath. It was the later church that interpreted it that way. Along with the emerging interpretations of the ordinances, officers, the institution of the Church, etc. which most of us reject.

You're probably seen some of the old debates with Bob Ryan, and the sabbathkeepers are able to find the same sort of "proofs"-by-implication for the sabbath in the same books (Acts, etc) and more.

If the sabbath was still mandatory, then NT scriptures would come out and clearly say it, and if the day was switched to Sunday, then the NT scriptures would come out and clearly say it.
The new house of worship, ordinances and officers are clearly, directly mentioned in the NT.

No need for this "piece together the puzzle" approach. All this proves, is what Col. 2:16 really says. (How could you even take that as a proof of mandatory Sunday, when that is one of the prime verses used against mandatory Sabbath? They both stand or fall together, there!)

 

[Dr. Walter]

The "Messanic Christian" movement is a resurgence of OLD COVENANT PRACTICES. Some demand these practices are necessary for salvation while others believe you ought to practice and do practice them but deny they are necessary for salvation. In both cases they are wrong as there is no New Covenant foundation for reinstating Old Covenant practices.

Furthermore, the Seventh Day Sabbath is irrefutably the SIGN and SEAL of the OLD Covenant between God and Israel as a nation and the Old Covenant has been abolished with its PRACTICES and seal and sign - Col. 2:14-16.