Q. Why does your interpretation of Paul’s writings seem to differ from mainstream Christianity?

A. I want to make this clear that it is not my interpretation only and that I had many teachers and scholars who passed on their knowledge to me over the years. To know the Lord is a commandment and that comes through knowing His word primarily and that takes a lot of work. Many people have told me what God said, but few could tell me what He meant and there is a difference. So, let me pass on to you some ways to help you understand Paul (and the rest of Scripture). There are several things to understand when you are reading Paul that just aren’t taught in seminaries or churches, so I’ll go over some of those things to give you some idea on how to understand the difficult words of Paul. Paul was a second Temple period Pharisee and was also an expert in the Torah. His teacher was the grandson of Rabbi Hillel. His writings contain many deep and mystical Hebraic concepts about the Lord. Most people who read the New Testament know very little about the Pharisaical understanding of the Scriptures. Most people know little or nothing about PARDES ( the 4 levels of interpretation called Peshat, Remez, Drash and Sowd) and the 7 Rules of Hillel in interpreting Scripture. Paul uses both of these in his writings. Anyone trained in these levels and rules will recognize them immediately when they read Paul. And if they don’t know the 4 levels (PARDES) they will not understand the deeper, mystical aspects of Paul’s writings and the writings of the other New Testament writers for that matter.. Another problem is the that the Hebrew concepts do not carry over well into the Greek. There are several good books on this subject like “ Understanding the Difficult words of Jesus” by Roy Blizzard and David Bivin. For instance, how does Paul convey the meaning of legalistically following the commandments without faith? Well, a phrase had to be invented called “erga nomos” in Greek which means “works of the Law” because there was no equivalent concept in Greek. Now if some of Paul’s meanings were lost from Hebrew to Greek, it got worse from Greek to English. Another problem is people read Paul’s letters with an instilled bias from their own theology and backround. They already think Paul was teaching “we are not under the Law” before they even start reading. Peter taught that Paul was hard to understand and that was before some of the above problems (2 Pet 3.16). Peter said that there would be “lawless” people who would twist what Paul said into error. He did not mean people who are were without Roman or American law, but “lawless” is to be understood as “without Torah (anomos in Greek).” He is saying that those who twist Paul’s writings do not follow God’s Law, the Torah ( the teaching, the instruction, the bull’s eye, the commandmants). They may do it ignorantly or on purpose, it really doesn’t matter. The fact is they will have incorrect interpretations because their “plumb line” is crooked. So, how should Paul be understood? You must understand the overall biblical and historical context. Be aware of Peter’s warning in 2 Pet.3.16. Remember what Yeshua said in Mt 5.17-19 when He said “Do not think that I have come to destroy (misinterpret) the Law, but to fulfill (interpret it correctly).” Today there are people who not only think it but teach it! Paul had positive statements about the Torah (Rom 7.12;22,25;1 Tim 1.8;Rom 3.31; 1 Cor. 7.19; Acts 25.8;28.17). Even Paul’s negative statements was not about the Torah but about the people and man’s misuse. Lastly, Paul himself was Torah observant (Acts 21. 15-26) and he taught others (1 Cor. 11.1-2; 2 The 2.16, 3.6). Eventually his writing’s would be used not only against the Jews by Gentile Christianity but used to deter anyone from following the Torah. They “redefined” his writings into what has developed into Replacement Theology (exactly what Peter warned us about) and that is where we find ourselves today. But, God wrote the Scriptures and inspired Paul and it is God who will teach us the same truth He conveyed to Paul so it is not hopeless. Many are being taught of the Lord through teachers He has raised up and they are rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem like Nehemiah and finding out that Paul is not difficult to understand at all. Try to keep these things in mind when you read his writings the next time. One of the questions I always ask myself is “How would this have been understood in the first century?” When Paul said what he said, how would his listeners have understood him. Don’t look at the Scriptures through the Church Fathers or the Rabbis, look at Scripture as if you were a first century Jew or Gentile and you will see what the writers were trying to say. It takes work and going back in history but God has not asked us to do something that is impossible. He wrote the book and He will show you what He meant.

Q. .What is the Lord's Supper?

A.This is a very important concept in the Scriptures and it started in the Torah. The information on what a Lord's Supper is will conflict with the concepts, ideologies and doctrines of many but hopefully you will look deeper into this. Again, there is no way to get into detail about all of
the concepts related to it but you will get a good idea of what it is and what it isn't.
Let's start with what it is. A Lord's Supper is a meal, a full meal, dedicated to God and concentrated on Him. Every Sabbath, festival (except Yom Kippur), life-cycle event had a theme and a meal was centered around it. Harvests and sacrifices also had meals around them. The emphasis of the meal always came back to the Wedding Supper. A Lord's Supper pointed to Sukkot and Sukkot pointed to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. The idea was to rehearse being in the Messianic Kingdom ( Mt 8.11; Mt 22.1-14; 25.10;Dt 16.1-16;Gen 18.1-8;31.54;Ex 24.1-11;Lk 12.35-38;Job 1.4). Each festival had a meal with songs, prayers, blessings, a theme, teaching, ceremonies, symbolic foods and scriptures.You could have a meal to celebrate victories, give comfort to mourners and it had a celebatory nature to them. Joy was an essential element and a right attitude. Paul admonished the Corinthians about how their meals had degenerated. Portions were given to the poor and guests were invited accompanied by a spirit of hospitality. The essence of a Lord's Supper was a banquet, an eschatological meal that taught something about the redemption. To eat with someone showed you had accepted them. In The Book of Galatians, the Gentile believers were being told that they had to be ritually circumcised( become Jewish) to be saved by some well-meaning believers but that wasn't true. When these teachers came to Galatia, Peter stopped eating with them to show he had not accepted them and Paul took him to task about it. It was Peter who had the revelation from God in Acts 10 that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be saved and yet he entered into hypocrisy for fear of them. This didn't look very good and Paul had to correct Peter to his face. A communal meal is one of the concepts around a meal concecrated to God and Peter didn't want to be seen "communing" with them. As you can see, there a many elements to a Lord's Supper that is very unfamiliar to most reading this and that is because what is being practiced today is not what the biblical model is. The current practice in many congregations is based on pagan concepts related to Mithraism. If you did some research on the Lord's Supper as it was done in Mithraism you would be very surprised to find out that
that it has more to do with pagan rituals than what the biblical model is. It has some mystical, sacramental element that has nothing to do with what the Lord had in mind. And
how did a full meal degenerate down to a thimble full of grape juice and a piece of bread?
It's because Replacement Theology has turned it into something it never was supposed to be. How many of us would invite someone over for a Thanksgiving dinner and then serve grape juice and a piece of bread? Now, if we wouldn't do that for a man-made festival why do people do it with a meal consecrated to God Himself? I hope this gives you some idea of this concept and also causes you to rethink what you may be practicing. There is so much more to this than what people have experienced and I hope this motivates some to find the true essence of what a meal consecrated to God is all about. For more information on this you can go to the Jewish Encyclopedia on the Internet and to Tyndale's commentary and look up "Banquets" and also look up"mithraism" on the Internet and find out what was practiced. You will be very surprised.

Q. Are the “sons of God” in Genesis 6.2 fallen angels?

A. This issue comes up every so often and we’ll deal with it again here. The “sons of God” are not fallen angels and they did not produce some sort of half-man, half-angel type of being . Let’s start in Genesis 6.1 and work through verse 4. Chapter 6 is telling us of Satan’s further attempt to corrupt mankind. There are other attempts in Scripture like when Balaam and Barak caused Israel to sin and 24,000 died. As mankind procreated, daughters were born. As time went on some followed after God and others didn’t and the truth was being corrupted. The “sons of God” is merely an expression for the believing line, also called the “sons of Seth” based on Genesis 4.26. In Genesis 6.2 these sons of Seth began to choose wives from the daughters of men from “whomever they chose” out of the unbelievers, and they were unequally yoked. Remember Abraham had a fear of this when he wanted to choose a wife for Isaac, and the wives of Jacob and Esau is another example. The Lord saw this wasn’t good. Living long lives was not producing repentance (2 Pet 3.9) and He sets a certain time limit (2 Cor6.2) in Genesis 6.3. The Nephilim in verse 4 were the children produced by these parents. Nephilim in Hebrew simply means “fallen ones” which implies that they had fallen from the truth with ferocity and impiety. This word is used again in Num 13.33 with allusions to the “giants in Deut 1.18, 2 Sam 21.18-22, 1 Chr 20.4-8 and these certainly were not children born from fallen angels but simply people with a “giant” reputation of ferociousness and impiety who had fallen away from the truth . These people became famous for their valor, power and rule and certainly the battle between David and Goliath would be an example of this struggle between the truth and those who had fallen away (nephilim) that has been going on since Genesis 6. There “nephilim” in the world today ,too. Now there are several other reasons why these were not fallen angels. First, angels cannot marry or are they given in marriage (Mt 22.29-32). Secondly, angels can’t produce children with humans because they don’t have the DNA to do it. Mankind can only produce “after their own kind” and that is through the DNA so that should settle this whole issue right there. So, in conclusion, Genesis 6 begins to tell the story of how the truth of God begins to get corrupted, and believers began to intermarry with unbelievers producing a mixture of truth and error. In time mankind was so corrupted that God brought the flood and preserved the truth through the righteous line of Noah. Later through the line of Shem (“semites”) the Messiah would be born who would destroy Satan as promised in Genesis 3.15. Genesis 6 tells us the story of how God preserved the truth of His Word to save mankind and judged those who had fallen from the truth and corrupted themselves through unbelief.

QIn Luke24Yeshua appears to the Apostles after His resurrection and said he was“flesh and bone”After the resurrection will glorified bodies have blood

A. In 1 Cor 15.50 it says that flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The term “flesh and blood” is an idiom meaning “the carnal state, mortal, subject to death.” In other words a man in his fallen state will not inherit the Kingdom. The Bible does not state all the capabilities of the new, glorified body or exactly how it will function. Secondly, the Bible doesn’t state whether it has blood or not. Some teach that glorified bodies will not have blood based on Luke 24.39 where Yeshua appears after His resurrection and says that He is “flesh and bone.” He is saying He is not a ghost or a vision but literally standing before them with flesh and bone they can physically see and touch. His choice of words is alluding to Genesis 2.23 where Adam “falls asleep” and out of his side his bride is created and he sees her for the first time after he “wakes up” and says she is “ bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”. Yeshua dies (falls asleep) and then resurrects (wakes up) then appears to His Bride(believers) and says the same thing. Paul says that Adam and Eve is a picture of Messiah and His Bride (Eph 5.31). Just because Yeshua does not mention blood does not mean He didn’t have blood. (He is alluding to Gen 2.23). Remember, Leviticus 17.11 says that “life is in the blood.” It is the “carrier” or “operator” of the body, especially the brain. At times , the physical is not subject to the Laws of Physics. Phillip was physically transported from one place to another in an instant, Peter walked on water and so on. If God can do that with a physical body He can make a glorified body function any way He wants. The Scriptures clearly teach that we are returning back to the original creation. We will have full, capable physical bodies that God originally designed. The difference will be that new life, energized by the Spirit of God will course through our veins, the very life of God and we will operate at full capacity. Yeshua appears in a locked room (Luke 24) but that doesn’t mean He won’t use doors. There will be doors in the Messianic Temple and Ezekiel 46.1-8 describes one He will use. The original body was “very good” before the Fall ( Gen 1.31) and it certainly had blood. Activities in the Messianic Kingdom will be normal like eating, drinking, building, farming and so on so there is no reason to think that glorified bodies will not have blood and you certainly can’t find anything in the Bible that states specifically we won’t have blood. I hope this answers your question.

Q. I see men praying with their heads covered. Is this biblical?

A. There is a lot of confusion about this practice so I am going to give what I believe about it, not only concerning men but women, too. The best place to learn about this will be 1 Cor 11.1-16 and I want to go verse by verse so that we can get the whole context. You have seen Jewish men wearing a “kippah” or yarmulke and many teach that this is a biblical thing to do. But in reality there is no commandment for men to wear a head-covering. A priest was to cover his head while ministering in the Temple but that was because he was anointed with the holy anointing oil, but that certainly did not apply to a non-priest. The practice of covering the head is one of those traditions that evolved over the centuries. Even the movie “Fiddler on the Roof” comments on the head-covering tradition and when Tevye asks about its origin he says “I don’t know” and we all have heard the song “Tradition” from the movie. The kippah/yarmulke shape is interesting. Some say it relates back to the practice of the idolaters to shave or “tonsure” the hair on the head in a circle because they were sun worshippers. Some denominations have a history of pagan sun worship and they wear head-coverings in the shape of a sun disk and the modern kippah is patterned after that. But, like Tevye, they’d have to say when asked about its origin “I don’t know” so let’s look at what Paul says and let’s put it into a first-century biblical, Jewish context because that is where he was coming from .

In Chapter 11 he begins to comment about the proper relationship between a husband and a wife in public worship in regards to authority. Being a Greek city these Gentile believers were heavily influenced by its culture and traditions. Paul is trying to teach the Corinthians about the Torah and how to walk in the Scriptures which was totally different to the culture and thought processes they were familiar with. That’s why he starts out in Chapter 11 by exhorting them to follow him because he follows Yeshua. We know that Yeshua followed the Torah so that means Paul followed the Torah and he tells the Corinthians to follow the Torah. He praises them because they follow the traditional and biblical concepts he has taught them so far. He then gives the spiritual application of what he is about to teach them in verse 3 and it is this verse that is the basis on how v4-16 should be interpreted. He says that Messiah is the head of the man, and the man is the head of his wife and God is the head over Messiah. What he is basically saying is that he, Paul, is not the “head”. He has already clarified that fact in 1 Cor 1.11-17. So he gives a basic spiritual hierarchy and then begins to deal with a problem in the congregations there. In verse 4 he says that any man who has his head “covered” (by any other man or institution) disgraces his head, who is Yeshua. We are not to follow or submit to any man-made authority that violates what the Lord has said (Acts 5.29). In verse 5 he goes on to say that any woman (wife) who has her head un-covered (by ignoring her husband’s authority as specified in v 3) disgraces her head (husband) and she is like one who “shaves her head”. He is referring to the practice of prostitutes who shaved their hair off. In other words she is like a spiritual prostitute because she has “cut-off” her spiritual covering. As you can see Paul is teaching Torah concepts on how a husband and a wife relate to each other especially in regards to public worship (praying and prophesying/teaching). He says that for a woman (wife) to shave her head literally would be disgraceful, so it is also disgraceful for her to “shave her head spiritually” by going against her husband’s authority . In v7 he says that it is disgraceful for a man to have his head covered (by any authority or institution other than Messiah) since he is the image of God and the woman is the glory of her husband. This is because the woman came from man and was created for his sake. Therefore a wife should have her husband as her authority. He goes on to say that this is done “because of the angels” and he is referring to that fact that some angels weren’t satisfied with their place and tried to usurp authority that was not given to them and they fell. So it is a warning about going against God-given authority, especially in a family. In v 13 he says that we are to judge for ourselves as to whether it is proper for a wife to pray to God by going against her husband (uncovered). He says that even nature itself teaches us that if a man has long hair he dishonors himself, but if a woman does it is a glory to herself. In a spiritual sense it is the same way. A husband who covers himself with any man-made institution or authority (long hair) dishonors Messiah but a wife who covers herself with her God-given “covering” (her husband) is doing the right thing because her glory (husband) was given to her, just like her hair in a natural sense. Her hair is a built-in “badge” of her femininity. Paul concludes this teaching by saying that if anyone wants to argue about what he is saying “don’t bother” because there is no other practice in the congregations. So, in short, Paul is not teaching about literal head-coverings. There is no Torah teachings about that. But, there is plenty of teaching in the Scriptures (Gen 2, Num 30 for instance) about how a husband and wife are to relate to each other, especially in a congregational setting and that is what he is talking about. Evidently the Corinthians were having some problems in this area very similar to what we experience in this culture today because our western culture is based on Greek thought as opposed to Hebraic thought and few husbands and wives today are taught God’s ways because we are not taught the Torah. So, it was the same back then. These people were coming out of a Torah-less society and Paul had to teach them the “traditions” (which in Greek is the word “ Paradosis”) which basically means “tradition by instruction based on the Torah”. These principles hold true for today also. A man is not to have any spiritual institution or authority over him other than the Messiah/Word of God and his wife should place herself under his authority and not rebel against his leadership in a spiritual or congregational setting. Now if she believes he is wrong, she can submit him to his head (Messiah) in prayer and let God deal with him. David did the same thing to Saul when he said he would let God judge between them, but he (David) was not going to lift his hand against him because he was his (David’s) authority as King and placed there by God. This brings up all sorts of questions and scenarios, but that is the basic instruction Paul is giving to the Corinthians and it has nothing to do with literal head-coverings.

Q. Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?

A. This question comes up every so often and it is a good time to discuss it because this is Passover week. I realize Christianity has already celebrated Easter but the reasons why have already been explained in recent articles. The bottom line is Christianity purposely tried to sever any connection with Judaism, the biblical festivals, the Sabbath and God’s commandments in favor of the traditions of men. Well, Rabbinical ( not biblical) Judaism has been just as guilty. The choice in Rabbinical Judaism is whether you will believe Moses or Rabbinical oral Law and tradition and the choice in Christianity is whether you believe Yeshua or the Church Fathers. Passover is to be determined by the ripeness of the Barley in Israel and the New Moon. This year Passover was on April 21st. The Feast of Unleavened Bread started at sundown and goes for seven days , ending on April 28th. The first and seventh day is a Sabbath and no work is to be done. The meanings of these spring festivals have been discussed in past articles so I won’t get into it again here, but these festivals can be found in Leviticus 23 and there is information about their prophetic significance on the Internet. Now, back to the question. I do not believe that the Last Supper was a Passover meal and I’ll give several reasons why. This meal took place on the night of Nisan 13 at sundown as the 14th began. Yeshua fulfilled Passover by being the innocent Lamb of God. In Luke 22.13-23 the basic story of what happened can be seen. Other gospels have it but let’s look at Luke for simplicity. The days of Unleavened Bread were approaching on which the lamb had to killed. In the first century, Passover could refer to the seven days of Unleavened Bread and Unleavened Bread can include Passover, totaling eight days total. It was just a way of thinking. So when it says the Unleavened Bread was coming on which the Passover lamb was killed was just a Hebraic way of saying Passover. The Passover lamb cannot be killed on any day other than Nisan 14 and so neither could Yeshua. Now I have heard many people try to get around that fact and make the Last Supper a Passover meal but it doesn’t work. They will say that the lamb was killed as the sun set on the 13th leading to the 14th of Nisan so Yeshua could be placed on the cross later that day. But the Passover lamb could not be killed that early in the day. The Temple was the only place the lamb could be brought and that didn’t happen till after the morning sacrifice on the 14th and well after 12pm. The worshippers in Jerusalem were divided into three groups of people. Each group would come up to have their lambs slaughtered and when they were done, the next group came in and so on and so you can see that this was very time consuming. They tried to get the lambs killed “between the evenings” and we know this was around 3pm. We know this because the true Lamb of God was killed at 3pm and so God Himself defined what “between the evenings” really meant. So, on Nisan 13 Yeshua sends His men ahead to prepare a room for Passover. Now that is no easy task. You have to “de-leaven” the room first of all, get tables, chairs, cushions, utensils, water and everything needed for the feast. This was done at least a day early. So when Yeshua talks about getting a place ready to eat Passover, that doesn’t mean He will eat it that night. In Luke 22.15 He says that He earnestly desired to eat this Passover with them, but again that doesn’t mean that night. He won’t be able to eat the Passover with them because He will be dead the next day, a fact that the Disciples still didn’t grasp at that time. What He was doing was getting together one last time with His students for one last night of instruction. This meal was known as a “Seudat Mitzvah” or a consecrated meal that accompanied any good work. It was called the Last Supper simply because it was the last supper before Unleavened Bread started. Anybody who keeps the festivals and especially Unleavened bread will telll you when the “last supper” will be after which no leaven can be eaten. The supper itself does not resemble a Passover, the lamb is never mentioned and bread and wine was eaten at many meals, not just Passover, Yeshua gives meaning to the bread and wine and then ties it into the ratification of the New Covenant in His own body and blood in Luke 22.19-20. Messiah Yeshua never broke a commandment of God and so He did not kill a Passover lamb a day early, outside of the Temple and eat a Passover on the night of the 13th going to the 14th. He was killed on Passover, between the evenings as prophesied, and was buried before the sun set on the 14th leading to the 15th of Nisan. It was probable that the Disciples went to the upper room and ate a very somber Passover meal, full of fear and very confused about the day’s events. Even though Yeshua warned them, they did not understand that the Messiah had to suffer on Passover, be buried on the first day of Unleavened Bread and rise from the dead on the 3rd Biblical festival of that week, the Feast of first Fruits. Which means that the true remembrance of the resurrection of Yeshua will be April 27th this year. But, in answer to the question, it is highly unlikely that Yeshua and His disciples were eating a Passover meal in the Gospels.

Q. What does Acts 11.26 mean when it says that the disciples were first

A To answer this question we will have to get into some first century
history and what was going on "behind the scenes" if you will. This verse
does not imply that a new religion was being formed that in any way
resembles what is known as Christianity today. Christianity did not exist in
the Book of Acts and neither did the false teachings that it disseminates.
The believers in the first century were Torah observant Jews and Gentiles
who came under the authority of the synagogues. They did not teach that
Sunday was Lord's Day, they did not eat pork or teach that the food laws
were invalid, they did not celebrate pagan festivals. So what exactly was
going on. Torah observance was expressed in many ways through many
traditions and not everyone did the same thing. But they all agreed about
the Sabbath and the keeping of the biblical festivals, what you could eat
and so on. Anyone who said that the Torah was "not for today" and taught
that one was "free from the Law" would be accused of heresy and rightly
judged and this included the writers of the New Testament who had nothing
good to say about those who taught a gospel without the Torah commandments.
In the first century there were various groups like the Pharisees. There was
not one group of Pharisee's but as many as 3 and four main groups but two
groups are predominant and they were called the School of Shammai and the
School of Hillel and were very eschatological (believed in the coming of the
Messiah).Both Shammai and Hillel lived in the first century. They had a high
regard for oral law but disagreed on how it was observed. The Mishnah and
the Talmud contain many arguments on halakah between the two schools.
Shammai was more strict than Hillel. The Sadducees were more of the priestly
class that opposed the Pharisee's and believed very little. The Boethucians
were rich Sadducee's that were non-eschatological and rejected the oral law
and many High Priest's came from this class. The Sicari (cut-throats) were
the most radical and would assassinate people who helped Rome. The Zealot
party was politically opposed to Rome and were Torah observant. There was
the Chasidim who were from the north and were pious but not like the
Pharisee's. The Essenes were a very zealous group and we are not sure
exactly who they were but they were fed up with what they felt was a corrupt
priesthood and withdrew into the wilderness. They were very eschatological.
There was also the Theraputae, or "healers" and they were related to the
Essenes. The Am ha Eretz or "people of the land" were the common folk who
didn't really care to study much and followed the Pharisee's and liked to be
told what to believe. Most of these groups would be called traditionalists.
The Hellenists (influenced by Greek culture) were those who were not so
"traditional" and this goes back to the time of the Maccabee's. The zealous,
traditional Jews were at odds with the Hellenists and a war was fought over
this 160 years before Yeshua. The traditionalist Jews fought the Greeks and
the Hellenized Jews in what was called the Maccabean War. The
traditionalists won the day but they looked with contempt on anyone who was
influenced by Greek culture and the feeling was mutual with the Hellenists.
This animosity and distrust permeated any interaction between the two
groups. Now the Hellenists were divided into several groups. The Judeans
were not eschatological and not very observant. The Asia Minor Hellenists
were very observant but influenced by Greek culture. The Alexandrian Jews of
the Hellenistic sort were Torah observant but influenced by Greek culture.
The last group I want to mention were the Babylonian Jews and they were very
Torah observant and did not have these other sects to deal with. After Rome
destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem, most of the above mentioned groups
disappeared except the Pharisee's. They formed what is called Rabbinic
Judaism and that is what has been handed down today. Rabbinic Judaism does
not resemble or represent what was being done in the first century and it
relies on rabbinic tradition. Yeshua's disciples were made up of people from
these groups with all the diverse beliefs and practices and He taught things
that could be found already in these groups. His overall beliefs were very
similar to the school of Hillel but his views on divorce agreed with the
school of Shammai. His teachings on hand-washing rituals and carrying a
pallet on the Sabbath agreed with the School of Hillel. His teachings about
the spirit of the Torah agreed with Hillel and "doing unto others" is very
similar to this school of thought. That is a whole study in itself but the
point is there was not one "Judaism" in the first century but "Judaisms" and
what Yeshua and the Apostles taught was very mainstream. Each group had
elders and leaders who set the "halakah" of that group, or how to walk
before God in light of the Torah commandments. Messianic believers had a
council or Sanhedrin where religious controversies could be settled (see
Acts 15). Yeshua's followers differed from the other groups in two main
areas. One, they believed He was the Messiah so they were known as the
"mashiachim" or "messianics" by others. The other area was on how to deal
with Gentile converts. All the groups accepted Gentile converts but some
believed that they had to undergo ritual circumcision to have righteousness
with God, or a place in the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pharisaic school of
Shammai was very adamant about this. The Messianic followers of Yeshua
thought that too in the beginning, but by Acts 10 and Cornelius that
doctrine was dropped for the most part. Now, it was into this world of
traditional versus Hellenistic thought that the disciples were sent into,
not to mention plain old paganism. So, when people from these different
groups began to be saved they brought their theology with them, good and
bad. You see the concept of ritual circumcision of Gentiles cropping up in
Acts 15 because traditionalist Pharisee's from the school of Shammai began
to get saved and brought this concept into their interaction with the
others. Paul, being a traditionalist from the school of Hillel would
naturally oppose this view and it came to a head in Acts 15 and the Book of
Galatians. Galatians has nothing to do with keeping the Torah, it has to do
with the traditionalist, Pharisaic concept as to whether a Gentile has to be
ritually circumcised according to the halakah of the school of Shammai or
not. It was the Lord's plan to educate Paul in Pharisaic Torah from the
school of Hillel and then reveal Messiah to him He was then sent out as a
teacher who wrote most of the New Testament Scriptures. The epistles were
Messianic commentaries on how to observe the Torah in light of the fact that
Yeshua is the Messiah. So, with that back-round let's talk about your
question. Gentiles who believed in God would be taught the Torah and were
called "Yiray Shamayim" or G0d-fearers. There were several other Hebraic
terms they were known by. One was called the "ger t'shav" or stranger in the
land. They were believers who lived in the land of Israel like Ruth and
Cornelius. If you lived outside the land you were called a "ger ha Sha'ar"
or stranger at the gate. This was important because where you lived
determined what commandments applied to you. For instance, if you lived
outside the land you did not tithe. In Greek they were called "phoubemenoi"
(God-fearers) and "sebemenoi" (devout ones) and these terms are used in the
book of Acts. So, you must understand that there was tension between the
traditionalists and the Hellenists in the first century and this had been
going on for over 150 years. Paul was a traditionalist from the school of
Hillel and you can see why he made war on messianic believers who were
Hellenistic by influence. That's why he was going to Damascus. There were
plenty of traditional messianic believers in Judea but he went after the
Hellenists. After Yeshua revealed Himself to him he did not give up the
traditional Judaism he learned but now he could interpret it correctly,
holding on to the good and discarding the bad. I think the Lord had a sense
of humor in sending Paul the traditionalist outside the land to reach
Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles. So, with all that back-round let's get to the
question. Antioch is a Hellenistic city (remember the Maccabean
traditionalists fought the Hellenists who sided with Antiochus) named after
the Greek kings. So, the Greek speakers in Antioch called the "mashiachim"
(Hebrew for messianics) "christianos" which is the same thing, only coming
from a Hellenistic angle. This term eventually was used to insult believers
and that is why Peter said not to be ashamed of being called a "Christian"
(christianos) in 1 Pet 4.14-16, or "messianic" coming from a Hebraic
mindset. This was not the start of a new religion and has nothing to do with
what is called "Christian" today. Peter was talking to Torah observant
believers in Messiah who were Jewish and Gentile and they would have never
accepted Christianity as it is today. Christianity is based on replacement
theology so the term messianic and Christian do not mean the same thing
anymore. Messianic carries the meaning of Torah observant which is seen as
applying only to Jews and Christian means non-Torah observant and is seen as
applying only to Gentiles. This couldn't be further from the truth as
expressed in the Scriptures. That is why Jews who believe are often called
"Hebrew Christians" and not Messianic Jews today. So, what is it supposed to
look like? God saves a Jew or a Gentile and both groups are part of one Body
and both groups were to keep the Torah as it applies. We are all a part of
one Bride, one Olive Tree, one congregation and we are to follow one Torah.
We have one Shepherd, one Prince, one King, one Messiah and we all follow
one God. Messianic is just the Hebrew word for "anointed ones" and if you
said it in Greek it would be "christianos" but both words mean the same
thing. That is what it is supposed to look like but that isn't what is out
there today and that is why there is much confusion about this verse. That
is why we should understand the Scriptures in the way they would have been
understood at the time they were written and not according to the
understanding and definitions of whatever denomination that happens to be
teaching you at the time.