Book of Acts & Interpreting Paul Pt. 5

During the last several weeks, we have been examining the question as to why the Book of Acts and especially the writings of Paul are so hard to understand. We dealt with how the faith departed from the Hebraic understandings to what is being taught today and to really understand the Scriptures we must go back to the Hebrew roots and understandings. I believe we accomplished that and so this week I want to get down to the heart of the matter and this can be found in Leviticus 10. 1-20. This chapter deals with Aaron and his first day as High Priest of Israel. What should have been the happiest day of his life turns into the lowest when his two oldest sons are killed by the Lord when they offered "strange fire" before the Lord during the incense offering. Why would these two men, trained by Moses himself to minister in the Tabernacle of God do such a thing on the first day? The answer to this question will help you understand why Paul was a Torah observant Jewish Rabbi who did not teach against the Torah as some say today. The priests in the Tabernacle and later the Temple were called to be teachers and they were to instruct the people in the ways of the Lord. They had to teach others on how to worship the Lord, how to distinguish between the holy and the profane, good and evil, light and darkness according to what the Lord has said. The ordinances of God cannot be changed by any human authority, not even the sons of the High Priest. But they did, they did not obey the Lord in the proper way to worship Him and they made a small change in the procedure. Most scholars think they did not put some coals from the altar into their censors with the incense but used ordinary coals from an ordinary fire, thus offering "strange fire" to the Lord. We need to learn this lesson today because we are living in an age when the commandments of God have not only been changed or amended but in some cases done away with altogether. One of the most glaring examples of this is in Leviticus 11 where God has a list of what is considered food and what cannot be eaten. The creatures that are considered "tahor" or clean and what is considered "tamai" or unclean have nothing to do with the physical but they are understood as a ritual purity or defilement, something that would prohibit you from entering the sanctuary, touching holy things or serving as a priest. These are temporary ritual defilement's as long as the Temple or Tabernacle was standing and if you ate something and was ritually defiled, you could not enter the Temple. These are God's rules and they were certainly observed in the 1st century and they will again (See Ezekiel chapters 40-48). But many are saying "but didn't Yeshua declare that all foods are clean?" He declared all kosher foods clean even if you did not ritually wash your hands before eating them according to the man-made traditions of the elders. You cannot annul a commandment of God (Mt 5.17-19). In Mark 7 and Mt 15.20 it clearly states that the issue being discussed is not "you can eat anything now" but if you eat clean food without washing your hands in a ritualistic manner as taught by the Pharisees the food is still clean and you can enter the Sanctuary to worship. Acts 10 is also misunderstood to teach that Peter's vision was God's way of telling everyone that they can eat whatever they want. But Peter himself said the vision was mean't to teach him that the Gentiles were not unclean to the Lord and he can enter into a Gentile's house. You see, there laws passed by some of the leading religious denominations at the time saying that a Jew could not go into the house of a Gentile without becoming ritually unclean and then prohibited from entering the Sanctuary for worship. These were man-made laws called "the 18 Edicts" and these were the things that the Lord was breaking down. Peter continued to struggle with this and was even confronted by Paul on this. To eat with a Gentile meant you accepted him. When some believers came who believed that a Gentile should be circumcised (become Jewish to get around the man-made law) Peter would not eat with them and Paul confronted him. The keeping of these laws have nothing to do with salvation because you aren't saved by works. They have everything to do with obedience. Many people will say "I haven't heard from God on this" or whether they should keep the Sabbath or festivals, but in reality they have heard from Him. There was a voice from Heaven that spoke these words to mankind over 3500 years ago but we think we have the right to decide, just like Aaron's sons did. We want to decide what is right and wrong. But a Voice did speak from Heaven and say "this is my beloved Son, listen to Him" but the crowd said "we didn't pick Him, we didn't choose Him, we'll choose what we are going to do" and that is the exact problem today. We pick what we want to obey and what we don't like. We find ways around the commands we don't like. And, like Aaron's sons, we approach the Lord with "strange fire" and then wonder why we get "burned." We need to examine ourselves by the water of the Word and to make sure we are worshiping the Lord in truth and in spirit and not according to our own ways. We need to have the proper Lamb on the altar, we need to was in the laver made from mirrors to see our reflection in the waters of the word, we need to make sure there are 12 loaves of bread, and that our Menorah is full of the oil of the Holy Spirit so our lights are bright and we need to make sure we have a coal from the fire from the altar outside, started by God Himself, to put in our censors and mix that with the incense, which is our prayers. Prayer should be inspired by the Lord and if we mix them with anything else, it is a strange fire. We need to go back to the pattern the Lord has given us and make sure we stick with it. If things are going wrong or something is not right, go back to the pattern God has given us in the Scriptures and things will be revealed to you on what to do. That is exactly what Moses and Aaron did after the death of the two boys and they did not deviate from what the Lord commanded, and neither should we.

Book of Acts & Interpreting Paul Pt. 4

This week we are going to continue with the question about understanding the Book of Acts and other New Testament Scriptures and we are going to specifically deal with the writings of Paul, but these concepts can be used to understand all of Scripture as well. When interpreting the writings of Paul you must keep in mind that he was a second Temple period Pharisee and an expert in the Torah. He also draws from mystical Hebrew concepts about God. So, a student of the New Testament and especially Paul must realize that he has a Pharisaical understanding of the Scriptures. The student should also know the Hebrew methods of interpretation called "pardes" and the 7 Rules of Hillel. These methods predated Paul and once you know what they are you can see how he utilized them when you study his writings. You must also be familiar with the mystical aspects of his theology, and even though Paul didn't write the Book of Revelation, that book is full of this mystical imagery. Another thing to keep in mind is the concepts Paul tries to convey does not translate well into Greek. For instance the concept of "ergo nomos" or "works of the law" is a term coined in the first century to carry over the idea that works of the law and keeping the commandments is no good without faith. Another concept is "upo nomos" or "not under the law" and this is the system that contains the "ergo nomos" in working for salvation. These terms did not exist in Greek and had to be translated over to carry the idea that one cannot earn salvation but that doesn't mean one abandons the commandments. So when you try to convey Hebrew concepts into Greek and then translate that from the Greek to English or whatever language, well, you can see that information can be lost or distorted. Also, readers today start studying Paul from their own religious training often devoid of the Hebrew roots and from their own biases and that has resulted in some faulty theology. They were already taught that they were not "under the law" before they began to study Pauls writings. We saw last week that Peter wrote that Paul's writings were hard to understand and that was before the problems we just discussed came into being so it is no small wonder why things are so out of context today. Paul's writings are twisted to mean something he never never intended and that is something to keep in mind today. So, in conclusion we have seven basic guidelines to keep in mind when studying Paul or any of the Scriptures for that matter. First, keep in mind the overall biblical context. Then, keep the historical context in mind also. Third, remember Peter's warning in 2 Pet 3.16. Fourth,Yeshua had a warning in Mt 5. 17-19 stating that he did not come to do away with the Torah but to interpret it correctly. Fifth, Paul had many positive statements about the Torah such as Rom 7.12-22,25; 1 Tim 1.8; Rom 3.31; 1 Cor 7.19; Acts 25.8; 28.17. Sixth, Paul's negative statements weren't about Torah but man's heart. And lastly, Paul's example found in Acts 21.24. Hopefully, these series of articles will help you in studying the New Testament and if you need to check these concepts out, the Internet is full of articles and documentation that will assist you. When I first started 30 years ago this was not available and it was hard work chasing down the books and tapes needed to get a better understanding of all these things, But now, if you have a computer and the Internet, they are right at your fingertips and a whole new world will open up for you if you truly want to understand the Word of God.
Click here for Part 5

Book of Acts & Interpreting Paul Pt. 3

	This week we are going to continue with the question from a few weeks ago as to why the Book of Acts is confusing to some and why there were so many debates found there. This series is attempting to give the "why" all this was happening and how we should look at the book today. So, with a foundation already discussed in last several weeks, let's review some things and then try to piece some things together so that you can understand Acts and understand what was going on. The Book of Acts will bring us up to about 63 A.D. or 7 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The book reveals the condition of the Jewish and non-Jewish believer and the issues and controversies found there. The Basar, or good news, is going out to the Gentiles and its concepts. Gentiles are coming into the faith without becoming Jews and having to be circumcised as part of the conversion process at the time. The Sadducees did not believe in the Messiah-ship of Yeshua or the resurrection and this was a major contention among believers who were Sadducees, who just didn't turn off what they were taught. On the other hand, the Pharisees didn't have a problem with the resurrection but had problems with whether Yeshua was the promised Messiah. Some Pharisees believed it and became believers, others did not. A constant during this time was a long running conflict between these two groups over the minds and hearts of the people. This conflict went back as far as the Maccabean revolt nearly 200 years before and they saw it as a conflict between the Hellenists (more Greek influenced) and the Traditionalists. At the heart of all this was how was a non-Jew supposed to live, how were they to walk before the Lord. This is called Halachah, or "how to walk." Into this mix you have to add all the other sects and what they believed and the misconduct of the Romans. So, with all that going on what you have is a powder-keg ready to explode. When it does, it will have an adverse effect on the Jewish people and all believers in Yeshua. By 70 A.D. Jerusalem will no longer be the ruling authority. Yeshua gave the people warning about this in Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 and believers flee to Pella to escape the coming judgment. When the nation is destroyed, Rome becomes the ruling authority and congregations in the empire and begin to abandon their Jewish roots and foundations. Jewish believers are split, with some adopting new ways and others do not. The non-Jews are faced with the same decisions. This transformation was already taking place when the New Testament scriptures were written but as the nation fell, so did the cohesiveness of the faith. Now, when we read the Scriptures, we must put them in context and you have to ask yourself "How would this be understood by the author and by the people reading them?" This is crucial to properly understanding any old document. You can't read Dickens, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Julius Caesar or anyone without understanding who they were or what was their belief system. You have to understand the idioms and phrases they used and not define them by what we think they are 100's of years later, but by what the writer knew them to be. That is one of the main problems in reading the Scriptures today. We have to understand them from the writers point of view and by what they meant to say, not how we would define their writings after 2000 years through the prevailing culture at the time or by the definitions in the interpreters native language. Hebrew understandings and idioms have been translated into Greek and then through every known language in the Earth today and much is lost through these translations. It isn't because of some conspiracy with the translators, it just happens that way. So, to understand the Book of Acts, or any book of Scripture for that matter, we have to go back and understand what was going on at the time, we have to understand the politics, the religious controversies, the idioms and phrases they used and rightly divide the Word of Truth. So, we need to understand the author and what he believed and how he lived when he wrote the book that bears his name. We need to ask ourselves these questions, to get into his mind and heart to understand his words, which were inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself. So, with that in mind, we will pick-up here next week and deal with the Apostle Paul and give you some insight in how to interpret his writings for example. Even Peter had some difficulty with his writings and he knew him. He writes in 2 Peter 3.15-16 that "just as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." So, it was happening in the 1st century so it's not surprising that it is even worse today. So next week we will talk about how to interpret the difficult writings of Paul and what to keep in mind when studying what he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Click Here for Part 4.

Book of Acts & Interpreting Paul Pt. 2

This week we are going to continue with what was going on in the Book of Acts and how to interpret the difficult sayings of Paul. Hopefully this insight will help answer your original question why things were happening as they were in the Book of Acts. The relationship between Jews and Romans were strained at best in the first century. Israel was being oppressed and the people conquered. However, the Jews were allowed to practice their religion freely within the empire due to an edict by Julius Caesar that said that the religion of the Jews predated Rome so therefore they were allowed to practice their religion. But as time went on this freedom was resented by not only the Romans but other conquered peoples. They said "Why should they be allowed to have this freedom and not us" and the Romans themselves didn't like the monotheistic ways and practices of the Jews. They had peculiar food laws and Sabbaths and they just didn't understand their ways, which led to criticism. Paul wrote the Book of Romans with these differences in mind. The congregations in Rome had some of the above issues as major problems. Those congregations were made up of unbelieving Jews, believing Jews and believing Gentiles. The Jews there were looked at by the Gentile Romans with some disgust and animosity developed between the two groups. The believing Romans didn't understand much about the Torah and they had built-in prejudices when they became believers and this contention was coming out and Paul was dealing with them on how to get along with the Jewish members of the congregations there. Well, magnify these problems in an entire nation and you can see why there were so many problems. It became a national issue over the very survival of the nation. You had so many "sects" or denominations at the time and some were very zealous against Rome and some didn't want to upset the status quo. Well, in 66 A.D. there was a Jewish revolt against Rome and the results were devastating. The city of Jerusalem was destroyed, along with the Temple, the people were scattered and the center of worship was no more. A few years later another Jewish revolt happened in 116 A.D. and then again another revolt in 135 A.D. As a result Jews were claimed as enemies of the state, along with their religion and practices. To participate in anything that seemed "Jewish" was seen as "unpatriotic" and as more Gentiles came into the faith, their ways and practices took over and the Jewish voice silenced. The Roman Government did not want anything to do with anything that appeared to be Jewish. So, the epistles of Paul will be used against the Jews and interpreted through Gentile eyes schooled in the paganistic thought of the time. Do a background on the "church fathers" and you will see where they were coming from. As a result, confusion erupts in Gentile Christianity. Heresies and splinter groups emerge because the people aren't studying the Torah concepts as given by the Lord. They devise new festivals and compromise is "ok." Latin is not a biblical language and it cannot define or translate the minute concepts found in Hebrew, and yet it became the language of this new "faith." Until 312 A.D. Gentile Christianity was outlawed and persecutions existed. But, strangely enough, Gentile Christianity was hunting down heretics and killing them at the same time, which meant they were hunting Nazarenes, Ebionites or anyone who was Torah observant. Then Constantine became emperor and forces everyone his way. He was an opportunist who merged Mithraism, Gentile Christianity, Bacchanalia, Roman idolatry, Saturnalia and various other religions together to solidify his empire around one religious faith because the empire was fractured. Up to this time there were many groups not knowing anything and arguing about everything but with Constantine there was a voice. If you agreed with him and his "creeds" you were in the church and if not you were a heretic.The "church" became true Israel, the Jewish faith was now obsolete. The Nazarenes were confusing the issue because they were Torah observant and believed in Yeshua. This went against the foundational teachings of Gentile Christianity. All of this is documented and can be found in encyclopedias, church histories and in the writings of the church fathers themselves. You became a church father because Constantine and the Council of Nicea liked what you had to say because it agreed with them. And they were called "church fathers' because they were the founders of a new "church" otherwise they would not be called "fathers." From the first century to 312 A.D. you have what is called the "Great Apologetic Movement" that put down Jews and their beliefs left and right. A very famous one is between Justin Martyr and Trypho, who is Rabbi Tarphon. By 325 A.D. and after, Constantine and Gentile Christianity become the state religion. With that as a background, next week we will pick with the Apostle Paul and how to interpret his writings with a correct biblical perspective. Click Here for Part 3

Book of Acts & Interpreting Paul Pt.1

Q There seems to be some confusion and hotly contested debates going on in the Book of Acts but the "why" is not clear to me. Could you explain what was going on because there seems to be more to it than what is explained in Sunday School?

A. You are right that in most places you will not get a very good background on what was going on, not only in Acts, but in all the Scriptures. So, I will give you a brief history and synopsis so that you can get an idea of the context, First, let's go back to the Great Commission in Matt 28.19-20. Let's define a few things first. The "gospel" is known in Hebrew as the "basar" and it means "good news" or "meat, bread" and it is spoken of in the Tanach, or Old Testament (Isa 40.9-10,62.10-11).
The "gospel" was preached to Abraham and taught all through the Old Testament. So, the gospel was defined as the golden age of Israel, David's throne restored, Messiah has come, God reigns through him over the earth, peace has come, man and nature restored, the resurrection has taken place, righteousness in the earth, the day of the Lord has come, Torah goes forth, no idolatry, the exiles have returned to the land, true worship restored, Gentiles believe and much more.
The Messiah is the agent of God empowered through the Ruach ha Kodesh (Holy Spirit) to bring all of this about. His task is to redeem man and nature. We enter into this redemption by emunah (faith). The gospel message is that Yeshua (the Messiah) has come and the redemption of all things has been initiated.
Now, the headquarters for the faith was Jerusalem. In 30 A.D., Yeshua was resurrected and all this was centered around the 12 Talmidim (apostles). At this time, there was not a concept that the Gentiles would come into the faith "enmasse" nor was there a concept that they would without becoming Jews. So, the Jewish people believed in the coming Malkut Shamayim or the Kingdom of God. This was about the restoration and very eschatological. 1st Century Jews believed that only Jews would have a part in the Malkut Shamayim. This included the disciples of Yeshua. When they heard "go and make disciples of all nations" in Matt 28 they thought the Gentiles had to become Jewish and the God fearers (Gentiles who believed in the God of Israel) were well on that road. Their concept of their commission was to go into world to the Jew. The non-Jew would come into Judaism as a convert, then see that Yeshua was the Messiah. Some factions did not like that idea. There were many groups or sects in the 1st Century. The Pharisee's were the most popular group amongst the people and they were made up of two main schools called the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. The question between the two groups was how should a non-Jew walk or live. The school of Shammai said that a Gentile should convert to Judaism through circumcision (Book of Galatians and Acts 15 deals with this), then keep the Torah. The school of Hillel believed that they should follow the Torah only where it applied to them, like festivals, Sabbath, sacrifices, food, uncleanliness laws and things like that. So, Acts moves along and and in Acts 10 Peter has a vision that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised (means becoming Jewish) to have a part in the Malkut Shamayim. After he tells the story in Acts 11 the disciples change their doctrine and the issue was settled for awhile. But the issue crops up again and Paul has the same revelation and he explains this in Acts 15 and in the Book of Galatians. Now, the Messiah was not the "basar" but he is the agent of it (Psa 68.11, Isa 40.9-15, 52.1-40). Messianic Jews are going to take a different path than mainstream Judaism. So, with this background, we will pick up here next week and discuss the the Book of Acts up to approximately 70 A.D. and the first Jewish revolt against Rome. We will deal with the Jewish and non-Jewish believer and the issues and controversies that we read about and hopefully this will give you more insight into what was really going on. This area of study is largely ignored in most Bible studies and it has lead to a gross misunderstanding of what Paul was trying to say. So, we will look at the history and how these misunderstandings led to heresies and how Jews were eventually viewed as enemies of the Roman government and how these attitudes were reflected through the writings of the so-called "church fathers" which has influenced biblical doctrine to this day.

Click here for Part 2

Q. Is there a contradiction between Paul and James?

Q. Is there a contradiction between Paul and James? Paul says that we are justified by faith but James says that faith alone doesn't save you and faith without works is dead.
A. There is no contradiction between the two. Whenever you read the Scriptures you have to keep in mind the context in which it was written. Paul, for instance, was writing to people who thought that self-justification was attainable by their Torah observance. This, of course, is never taught in the Torah itself. A man can never be justified before God by works. But, just like some denominations today, the Jews had a well developed system of works righteousness and Paul had to deal with that everywhere he went. He says in Rom 9.32 that the Jews did not pursue righteousness by faith but by works. They thought that when they obeyed God they earned righteousness and that is just not the case. That's why Paul says that we are not "under the Law." Now, that term in Greek is "upo nomou" and it means that we are not subject to a system of works righteousness. He also says that we cannot earn righteousness through "works of the Law." That term in Greek is "ergo nomou" and that means a system of works righteousness. You cannot earn righteousness through obedience to God nor are we subject to a system that says we do. We approach God through "emunah" or faith.This Hebrew word is related to the word "amen" which means "so be it" or "let it be done." Now, faith is action and it is made up of three components. First, "ahav" or love. You obey the Lord because you love him. You must have the right attitude. Secondly, there are "mitzvot" or commandments. This word can also be translated "works." We should obey the Lord because we love him and let our good works shine, which glorifies our Father in Heaven. Third, we have "da'at" or knowledge. God tells us to do something and we act. There is no such thing as blind faith in the Bible. So, biblical faith is made up of love, works and knowledge. So, Paul is saying that a man is not justified by works but he does not say you shouldn't have any. James is saying the same thing. James is dealing with an audience that was anti-nomian, which means they were forgetful hearers of the Law. James is saying that if a person has genuine faith he will have genuine works as evidence of that faith. He is not saying that you need works to be saved, he's saying that you will have works when you are saved. Now, these works are not what man says are good works, it is what God says are good works and those works are described in the Scriptures. Paul and James are not contradictory but answer the question of how a component of faith (works) fits into salvation. Paul says that good works does not earn righteousness because that is a free gift of God and James is saying that one who is truly saved will have good works following as evidence of that saving faith.

Q. I heard a minister say that adultery was the only reason for a divorce. Is that true?

A. We are going to look at several verses and you will get a good idea of what the Lord requires. In Deut 24.1-4 it gives the biblical requirements for a divorce. There are four things that have to be established. First, there has to an indecency found in the individual. The word translated indecency in Hebrew is "ervah" and it does not mean adultery or any of the uncleanliness issues in Leviticus 18 because they were punishable by death. Ervah basically means"improper" and something that makes their life together impossible because it would lead to cruelty and abuse. There is no cause for divorce in the Torah for sexual sin, only death was prescribed. After "ervah" was established, the individual must write a certificate of divorce, put it in the hand of the other and then send them out. They can remarry only if neither one marries someone else. If they do then there can be no remarriage. The bottom line is you did not get a divorce for adultery, that was a death penalty. But let's look at some of the verses in the New Testament that deals with this subject. In Matt 5.32 it says that "every one who divorces his wife, except for uncleanliness (Gk="porneia") causes her to commit adultery (Gk="moichao") and whoever marries a woman who is separated but not divorced commits adultery." Now, the Greek "porneia" is the equivalent to the Hebrew "ervah" and what the Lord is doing is freeing Deut 24.1 from all the false interpretations of the Pharisee's. They took the word "ervah" to extremes and said that a person could divorce for very little. Do some research on 1st Century divorces and you will see what the Lord was trying to do. Exodus 21.10 gives us a little more insight into "ervah" because it says a divorce can be granted for non-support or reduced conjugal rights. This is not an exhaustive list but where life together becomes impossible, then there is cause for divorce .Matt 19.9 says the same thing. Some Bibles translate "porneia" as fornication but that is a very limited view .Mark 10.11 and Luke 16.18 has another concept to understand. It says "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery." Now we know from Deut 24.1-4 and Matt 5.32 that divorce is allowed so what does it mean. Divorce also carries the idea of "separation" and in these passages it means that if you only separate you are not free to remarry yet. You go back to Deut 24 and Matt 5 and it says that unless you have a proper divorce/separation with a certificate and it's put in the others hand and you send them out, then there is no divorce or proper separation and you are not free to marry someone else. What has happened today is people have little or no understanding about the Torah and the New Testament has been translated to fit in with the biases of the translator and confusion is the result, much like what happened in the 1st Century. One can be too loose about divorce, but one can also have a very narrow view and both are extremes. So, the bottom line is adultery is not the only reason one can get a divorce and the Bible does not teach that either. Next week we will look at this law of divorce and tie it in with eschatology and why the Lord wrote the law the way he did. This will give you a proper understanding about this law of divorce and will give you insight into the coming of the Lord and his dealings with Israel.