October 2021 - Page 2 of 4 - NazareneSpace Blog

Three key Differences Between Messianic Judaism and Nazarene Judaism

Three key Differences Between
Messianic Judaism and Nazarene Judaism
By
Rav Mikhael

In my last blog I posed the question “Is the Term Messianic Judaism Biblical?“. Today’s blog is a “guest blog” and is an excerpt from a presentation given at our Netzarim ’99 Conference: Nazarene Judaism, A New Vision . Today’s blog begins to address some of the the actual differences between Nazarene Judaism and Messianic Judaism. – James Trimm

I believe the central issue that we need to address is one of identity. With whom do we identify, or, as I have heard it poignantly stated before, with whom will we be persecuted? Many people who hear of us and what we are doing will identify us with the Messianic Jewish Movement (I have experienced this many times) and by doing so they place us under the heading of ‘Christianity’. Both Jews and Christians who are knowledgeable enough usually make this identification. We need to ask ourselves whether this is the banner under which we want to develop our identity.

Let’s look at the Messianic Jewish Movement for a moment. Many of us are familiar with it and some of us are still involved with it to some degree. The following discussion is about the popular notion of what the Messianic Jewish movement is all about and how it describes and understands itself as exemplified by the Messianic Jewish Alliance, The Messianic Union, related organizations and their leaders. Regardless of what may be their deepest desire, which is to be regarded as a valid expression of Judaism, just as the Orthodox or Reform movements are, they are not and they never will be. Because in their attempt to do so, they have kept one foot firmly planted within the Christian community. A large part of their theology and worldview come from Christianity. While they do reject replacement theology and so make room for themselves as Jews within the Christian community, they have not, in most cases, developed practices and institutions endemic to Judaism. As such there are some fundamental problems with the Messianic Jewish Movement’s understanding of things and this results in confusion and disunity.

One of the first areas of confusion is that of religious expression. First, allow me to say that there is a wide spectrum of religious practice among Messianic Jews and their congregations, which, in itself, is a problem. Some congregations are adopting Orthodox or Hasidic practices and others have kept mainstream church worship traditions. Ultimately, in the Messianic Jewish point of view, there are no standards because there is no right and wrong in religious expression. Allow me to explain how I can come to such a conclusion. While many Messianic Jews and even some Christians know that Passover and Yom Kippor are Scriptural and Christmas and Easter are not, there can be no authoritative correction (although the Christians will sometimes accuse those who follow Scriptural religious traditions of being legalists and Judaizers!). This is because Messianic Jews see themselves as part of the ‘church’ and they look at Christians as their brothers and because of this they accept, to a greater or lesser degree, the Christian interpretation of Scripture. They are all part of the ‘body’, the Messianic Community, the universal Church. The result of this is the practical understanding that Elohim does not really care that most of ‘the body’ are worshipping Him according to the practices of the pagans (Deut 12) or the ‘Traditions of men’ and while He may be pleased that some are worshiping Him according to Torah, it was really only meant for ‘ethnic’ or ‘natural’ Israel. In the great scheme of things it doesn’t really matter because ‘we’re all saved’, which is the ultimate goal of both groups. I have read this described as the ‘One faith, one baptism, two expressions’ theory. One cannot do enough Scriptural gymnastics to support such an idea. To do so is to ignore all the warnings of Moshe and the Prophets about the adoption of pagan practices and of the corruption of the pure religion YHVH had given to the people of Israel. It supports the spoken and unspoken assumption of the ‘church’ that the ‘Old Testament’ isn’t relevant to them. It is also to embrace the absurd idea that Shimon Kefa and that great Pharisee Rav Sha’ul accepted Gentiles into the community of Israel while allowing them to continue to practice paganism. That they allowed pagans to rename pagan practices and celebrate them with equal validity alongside the festivals of YHVH and see nothing wrong with it. That Gentiles could come into covenant relationship with the Elohim of Israel while thumbing their noses at all the things those who had gone before held dear. That they believed the Messiah had come to give ready acceptance to both Jews and Gentiles in the small, unique community of Remnant Israel, regardless of their behavior or the forms of their religious expression. Anyone who wants to become part of the commonwealth of Israel through the Messiah does so in the context of covenant. And covenants have stipulations that are meant to be adhered to and if they are not, there are negative consequences. For Messianic Jews to look at and accept Christians as equally acceptable brothers ‘in the Lord’ and as legitimate ‘converts’ into the commonwealth of Israel is to destroy the basis for the covenant relationship Elohim has always had with His people.

This brings us to another problem with Messianic Judaism. They don’t know what to do with the Gentiles. The confusion again results from having one foot in either camp. On the one hand, they want to see themselves as a legitimate branch of Judaism and to this end, they have set up many institutions in which the leadership and policy bodies are made up of ethnic Jews (although in Messianic Judaism the definition of an ‘ethnic Jew’ does not usually follow ‘traditional’ halachah). However, many Gentiles have become attracted to Judaism, as has been the case throughout history, and a brand of Judaism that allows them to maintain their belief in their Messiah is particularly attractive. Many Christians have come to see the value in understanding the jewishness of their original faith and some have even been motivated to adopt some Jewish practices. And others, like many of us, have seen the value of Torah as the correct way of life for the redeemed person and have sought to apply it all to the best of our knowledge and understanding. But when a Gentile comes into Messianic Judaism they find out that their participation is limited to the perimeter. In the MJAA they are not allowed full membership. They are not ordained as Rabbis. There is no mechanism or procedure to allow a Gentile’s full participation in the institutions of Messianic Judaism.

In Non-Messianic Judaism, this is accomplished through the conversion process. After a Gentile has gone through this process they are members of the House of Israel, no different than their natural born counterparts, with all the same privileges and responsibilities. Messianic Judaism, on the other hand, does not see the need for conversion. The Gentile Christians are already their brothers, fellow heirs in the body of Messiah. Why would they need to convert? In many Messianic synagogues, Jews and Gentiles alike are encouraged to pray the ‘sinners prayer’ at which time they enter the ‘Church’. The Jew and the Gentile take divergent paths from there, however. Once they come into the ‘Church’ they have different responsibilities and duties. In the Messianic synagogue, Judaism is practiced to some degree. The Gentile is sent to a church with different practices. He can visit the synagogue but it not really there for him, regardless of what he thinks. So the Gentile on whom Elohim has impressed the importance of Torah and Judaism finds himself in limbo. While the Messianic Jews see him as a ‘brother in Messiah’ he is held at arms length due to an accident of birth. It seems as though the Messianic Jewish ‘denomination’ is a ‘Jews only’ club.

Another problem is Messianic Judaism is ambivalent about Torah. Since it seems as though Messianic Judaism is another Christian denomination of sorts, they have sought to pour the wine of Christianity into the wineskin of Judaism. Outwardly, many of their practices are Jewish. They wear tallit when they worship and they worship on Shabbat. They celebrate many of the festivals and they wear kippot. Some synagogues even have Torah scrolls and a few of the congregants can read it. But inwardly, most of their theology and belief is Christian. Their creeds, their understanding of the Messiah, the nature of God, salvation and especially their attitude and understanding of the Mosaic covenant come from Christianity. They don’t know how important it is. On one hand, they’re Jewish so they know, at some level, it is important to them. On the other hand, their brothers, the Christians, don’t obey the mosaic covenant at all. In fact, they have adopted many practices of the pagans, something the terms of the covenant prohibit. But they are ‘saved’ just the same. Yet, both the Messiah and His Talmidim taught about the importance of Torah and lived it out in their lives. And these are the acknowledged founders of the ‘church’. But the ‘church’ has taught for almost two thousand years that Torah is not essential for salvation, it is not important in a believer’s life and may even be an impediment to the Christian drawing closer to Elohim. So if it’s not essential to salvation, Messianic Judaism cannot, with any real authority, require, or even strongly encourage, Torah obedience among it’s adherents. Christian understanding says Torah is not important so as long as Messianic Judaism remains in the Christian camp, Torah obedience will just be one option of acceptable Christian religious expression among many. It will be a means to an evangelistic end and will continued to be looked at with suspicion (and rightly so) by non-messianic Jews.

So what am I saying here. I’ve thrown out a a lot of terms here; salvation, Torah, Israel, Messiah, Church, Jew, Christian and others common in our religious debate. The definition of these terms is something that we need to discuss as well. Messianic Judaism has adopted, for the most part, a Christian understanding of these terms and many of us, having been brought up in a Christian environment, still think that way as well. As such, it would be easy to conclude from my statements that I believe Torah, the Law, is essential for salvation and all the Christians are going to hell. Taking salvation, Israel and Torah, understanding them in the common Christian sense and combining them as I have, it would be easy to come to that conclusion. Nothing could be farther form the truth however. One does not have to be part of the ‘commonwealth of Israel’, remember the Sabbath, abstain from pork or celebrate the festivals to receive a place in the world to come (See Israel, the Goyim and the Eternal Destiny of Man for more info here). That is another issue completely but it illustrates the point that if we are going to understand Scripture in a consistent matter, we cannot blindly accept Christianity’s definition of these terms for they have a different meaning in Judaism.

Ultimately, the question which we must have the courage to face and answer is, ‘are Christianity and Judaism compatible at all?’ Messianic Judaism has said yes and attempted to make the marriage work and we have looked at the results. I believe there are fundamental differences between Judaism and Christianity in theology, practice and in the religious communities themselves which require a negative answer to the question. Christianity evolved as a reaction against Judaism and the Jewish people around the period of the first Jewish war with Rome. It proscribed Jewish practices more vehemently than did the Roman government. It began to understand the Scriptures through the eyes of Plato and Aristotle instead of Moshe and the prophets. They stole the Sacred Scriptures and made them simply a preface to their own and then redacted themselves into them to create a sense of legitimacy. They changed the Messiah from a Torah obedient Jewish man Who loved His people to a universal, anti-Torah demigod. And once they had the machinery of the state at their disposal, they rigorously persecuted the true people of Elohim, something that continues to this day. Judaism is a triad of Torah, people and land put together by Elohim Himself never to be forsaken or replaced. Christianity has proscribed the Torah for it’s adherents, persecuted the people and moved the promised land to the heavenlies. How can there be any perceived continuity between the two? Judaism holds dear everything Christianity abhors. Christianity is a man made religion, a combination of Roman and Babylonian religion, Greek philosophy and some basic Jewish ethics (although with all the murder and mayhem perpetuated in the name of ‘Christ’, the last point could certainly be disputed). Christianity has taken some basic truths and ideas, removed their foundation and created a new religion. To put Judaism back into Christianity is to put a square peg in a round hole. When we present Nazarene Judaism to Christians, we are not educating them about the roots of their faith, we are showing them the truths of the Scriptures they claim. Christianity is not a form of Judaism, it doesn’t even spring from the same well.

We received no donations all weekend, and we still need to raise at least $1,350 for our rent in the next 7 days, plus $350 is due on our electric bill ASAP!

We cannot do this work alone, but if we work together we can accomplish so much. So don’t forget to support this work with your contributions, tithes and offerings.

You make this work possible. Please help us bring the message of Torah and Messiah to a lost world and create Scripture study materials for believers.

Now is time to step up to the plate!

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org.

Or click HERE to donate

Is the Term “Messianic Judaism” Biblical?

Is the Term “Messianic Judaism” Biblical?
By
James Scott Trimm

You may be surprised to find out that the original Jewish followers of Yeshua were NOT “Messianic Jews”. In fact Messianic Jewish leader Daniel Juster admits:

No form of Judaism or Christianity… has used the term “Messianic Judaism” as its appropriate designation.
(Jewish Roots; 1986 edition, p. viii)

The original followers of Yeshua were a sect of Judaism known as “Nazarenes” (as we read in Acts 24:5).

The term “Messianic Judaism” was invented in the late 60’s and it is a human invention. Messianic Jewish Leader David Stern writes in his Messianic Jewish Manifesto:

According to Scripture the word “Christian” does not denote Jewish believers in Yeshua at all. The New Testament calls them followers of “this way” (Acts 9:2, 22:4) and “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5)… the New Testament does not call Jewish believers “Christians”. According to New Testament usage the term “Christian” is reserved for Gentile believers in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua.

Acts 11:19-26 tells how in Antioch some Jewish believers… did not limit their proclamation of Yeshua as the Messiah to Jews, as had been the norm previously, but broke new ground… Many of these Gentiles came to believe… the other Gentiles in Antioch… coined the word christianoi (Christians),… Thus the term “Christian” was invented by Gentiles to describe Gentiles in a Gentile environment. The New Testament tells us explicitly that “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.” [Acts 11:26]
(Messianic Jewish Manifesto; David Stern; p. 32)

It is important here to note that David Stern himself in his Jewish New Testament and Complete Jewish Bible, translates Acts 11:26 with:

…it was at Antioch that the talmidim for the first time were called “Messianic”.
(Acts 11:26 JNT)

In his commentary to this passage in his Jewish New Testament Commentary Stern writes:

“Messianic,” or “Messianics,” Greek Christianoi, which could be rendered… as in other translations, “Christians.” …the name “Christianoi” was applied to Gentile believers by Gentile nonbelievers. The name nonbelieving Jews gave to Jewish believers was “Natzaratim”… (“Nazarenes”),”

Again in Messianic Jewish Manifesto Stern writes:

“Messianic” comes from the Hebrew mashiach, which means “anointed.” “Christian” comes from Greek christos, which is the [Greek] New Testament’s translation of mashiach and means the same thing. …in the New Testament the term “Christian,” which appears only three times, apparently denotes being a Gentile believer in Yeshua, so that scripturally “Jewish Christian” is a contradiction in terms.
(Messianic Jewish Manifesto; David Stern; p. 20; Emphasis and brackets added)

Now we can see from David Stern’s own words above:

The terms “Christian” and “Messianic” are alternate translations of the Greek word “Christianoi” “and mean the same thing”.
The term “Christianoi” or “Christian” is used in the scriptures only to denote a GENTILE believer in Yeshua, so that scripturally the term “Jewish Christian” is “a contradiction in terms”.

Therefore we may conclude that:

The term “Messianic” is used in the Scriptures only to denote a GENTILE believer in Yeshua, so that scripturally the term “Messianic Jew” is a contradiction in terms.
The logic is inescapable… the term “Messianic Judaism” is scripturally invalid, it is a human invention and a contradiction in terms.

So what were the original Jewish followers of Yeshua called if they were not Messianic Jews? Stern admits:

The New Testament calls them followers of “this way” (Acts 9:2, 22:4) and “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5)
(Messianic Jewish Manifesto; David Stern; p. 32)

In fact if we quote Stern, but substitute the word “Messianic” for “Christians” (since Stern admits “they are the same”) we read:

According to Scripture the word “MESSIANIC” does not denote Jewish believers in Yeshua at all. The New Testament calls them followers of “this way” (Acts 9:2, 22:4) and “NAZARENES” (Acts 24:5)… the New Testament does not call Jewish believers “MESSIANIC”. According to New Testament usage the term “MESSIANIC” is reserved for Gentile believers in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua.

So the Biblical term for original Jewish believers in Messiah is NOT “Messianic” but “Nazarene”. We should be seeking a restoration of “Nazarene Judaism” not creating a “Messianic Judaism” which, being “Christian Judaism” (i.e. “Christianized Judaism”) is, according to David Stern himself, a contradiction in terms.

Of course is it just the name that is unscriptural, or are there unscriptural teachings in Messianic Judaism as well? Find out in future blogs.

It could be said that all Jews are “Messianic Jews” in that belief in the concept of Messiah is one of Rambam’s thirteen principles of Jewish Faith. Moreover those Chabadniks who believe Rebbe Schneerson was the Messiah are also called “Messianic Jews”. On the other hand, the term “Messianic Judaism” is unbibliblical and problematic. The Messianic Jewish movement was originally created by Christians as a Christian effort to convert Jews to Christianity (as we will show in a future blog), as the mainline of Messianic Judaism sees itself as one with Christianity.

We need your help today! Donations have been very low this month!

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org.

Or click HERE to donate

Seven Days to Go!

We received no donations all weekend, and we still need to raise at least $1,350 for our rent in the next 7 days, plus $373 is due on our electric bill!

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org.

Or click HERE to donate

We Have Just Nine Days Left!

We still need to raise at least $1,350 for our rent in the next 9 days!

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org.

Or click HERE to donate

Circumcision- Token of the Covenant

Circumcision- Token of the Covenant
By
James Scott Trimm

The ancient so-called “Church Father” Epiphanius writes of the ancient Nazarenes:

But these sectarians… did not call themselves Christians–but “Nazarenes,” … However they are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do… They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion– except for their belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that Elohim is one, and that his son is Yeshua the Messiah. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the… Writings… are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law–circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest– they are not in accord with Christians…. they are nothing but Jews…. They have the Goodnews according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

CIRCUMCISION – ETERNAL TOKEN OF THE COVENANT

Circumcision is first mentioned in the Torah in Genesis 17 where it is introduced to Avraham as an eternal token of the Covenant:

9 And Elohim said unto Avraham: And as for you, you shall keep My covenant you, and your seed after you throughout their generations.
10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.
11 And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised among you–every male throughout your generations–he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of your seed.
13 He that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, must needs be circumcised. And My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people: he has broken My covenant.
(Gen. 17:9-14 HRV)

Later in the Torah we read:

And YHWH said unto Moshe and Aharon: ‘This is the ordinance of the Pesach: there shall no alien eat thereof;
but every man’s servant that is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof.
In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall you break a bone thereof.
All the assembly of Yisra’el shall keep it.
And when a stranger shall sojourn with you, and will keep the Pesach to YHWH, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
One Torah shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourns among you.’
(Ex. 12:43-49 HRV)

Now there are a number of things we can learn from this passage:

1. All the “Assembly” of Israel must eat the Passover.
2. No uncircumcised male can eat the Passover.

From these two facts we may conclude that:

If all the Assembly eat the Passover,
and if no uncircumcised males eat the Passover,
then no uncircumcised males are part of the Assembly.

This is an inescapable categorical proposition drawn from the plain statements in Exodus 12:43-49.

Now from Acts 15 we also know that one does not have to be circumcised to be saved. Thus we can add another fact to our reasoning:

3. Some uncircumcised males are saved.

Now if no uncircumcised males are part of the Assembly, and if some uncircumcised males are saved, Then some saved persons are not part of the Assembly.

Again this is an inescapable categorical proposition draws from the facts plainly laid out in Ex. 12:43-49 and Acts 15.

There are in fact some saved persons who are not part of the Body of Messiah, the Assembly of Israel.

Answers to Commonly Misunderstood Passages about Circumcision

Circumcision and Salvation – Understanding Acts 15

Circumcision of the Heart

Is there Profit in Circumcision? (Gal. 5:2)

Should an Uncircumcised Man Remain Uncircumcised? (1Cor. 7:18-19)

Why Titus was not Compelled to be Circumcised (Gal. 2:3)

Is Circumcision Mutilation of the Flesh? (Phil. 3:2)

The ancient Nazarenes did in fact continue to practice physical circumcision of the flesh, just as Epiphanius records, because the Torah teaches us that circumcision of the flesh is a token of our covenant with YHWH for all generations forever. Circumcision is not now, nor has it ever been a path to salvation, and therefore one may be saved without being circumcised. At the same time one must be circumcised to be part of the Assembly of Israel.

Red Alert: And we still need to raise at least $1,600 for our rent in the next 9 days!

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org.

Or click HERE to donate

We Have Ten Days!

Red Alert: I must pick up a medication for my wife that is nearly $250 after insurance by the end of the day today. And we still need to raise at least $1,600 for our rent in the next 10 days!

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org.

Or click HERE to donate

Was the Torah only a Shadow? (Col. 2:16-17 & Heb. 10:1)

Was the Torah only a Shadow?
(Col. 2:16-17 & Heb. 10:1)
By
James Scott Trimm

Often when I share with Christians that the Torah is everlasting, for all generations, they respond by saying, “But the law was only a shadow.” By this they allude to Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 10:1, two passages which have been very misunderstood.

Lets begin by looking at Col. 2:16-17 as it reads in the KJV:

Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body is of Christ.
(Col. 2:16-17 KJV)

There are three issues we must look at here:

First the passage speaks not only of “meat” but of “drink” so it cannot be speaking about the kosher laws which deal with food not drink. Paul’s opponent here has differing views regarding “meat”; “drink”; “holydays”; “new moons” and “sabbaths”. Clearly his opponent here are the Essene influence within the movement which later re-emerged as the Ebionites. These Essene-Proto-Ebionites were vegetarians, they all took the Nazarite Vow (and thus abstained from wine) and they used a Solar Calendar. Thus they differed with Paul on issues of “meat”; “drink”; “holydays”; “new moons” and “sabbaths”. SO Paul is not speaking here about the validity of Torah, but of his opponents positions on these issues.

Secondly there is the “shadow” issue. Now we know that Passover was a shadow which Messiah fulfilled, yet rather than abolish the observance of Passover as a result, Paul says “therefore let us keep the feast” (1Cor. 5:7-8).

Lastly we must once again look at the KJV’s use of italic here. The italics in the KJV indicate words that are not really there in the Greek, but which the KJV has added to the text. This is supposed to be to help the text make sense in English, but in some cases like this one the italics have been used to completely and radically change the meaning of the text. If we remove the italicized word “is” from the phrase “body is of Christ” we see the familiar phrase “body of Christ” which appears over and over in the New Testament. Why would one disrupt the common phrase “body of Christ” by inserting the word “is”? If we reread the KJV without this word something interesting happens:

Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath:
Which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body of Christ.
(Col. 2:16-17 KJV without itallics)

Suddenly the passage is no longer contesting “shadow” with “body” it is contrasting “man” with the “body of Christ” or “body of Messiah”! The passage is now saying that no individual man has authority to judge in these matters, only the collective Body of Messiah has this authority.

Now lets look at Hebrews 10:1 as it appears in the KJV:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
(Heb. 10:1 KJV)

It should also be noted that while most manuscripts of Hebrews do read in this verse “not the very substance” the oldest copy of Hebrews (p46) reads:

For the law having a shadow of good things to come,
and the very image of the things.
(Hebrews 10:1 from p46, the oldest copy of Hebrews)

The Hebrew text of Hebrews which Sabastian Munster obtained “from among the Jews” and published in the 16th Century has a conflation in this verse reading “and not the very substance”. Only Munster and p46 have the word “and” in this verse (the word “and” is in the KJV here, but is in italics, meaning that it was not in the Greek). The presence of the word “and” in the Munster Hebrew text could be seen as supporting the reading of p46 and the word “not” could have been added to the Hebrew text later to bring it into conformity with the majority of Greek manuscripts. In any case, it is ill advised to create an entire theology around a word in the text for which the evidence is divided as to whether that word even appeared in the original. And even if we accept that the word “not” belongs in the text, this still does not indicate that the Torah should no longer be kept. Paul here is referring in context to the fact that the earthly tabernacle is a shadow of the heavenly one (see Heb. 8:5; 9:11). This passage does not teach a doctrine that the Torah should not be kept because it is only a shadow, in fact the Torah has always been a shadow of good things to come, even in the days of Moses when the Tabernacle stood and was being used.

Yes the Torah is in fact a shadow of many good things. The tabernacle in the Torah is a shadow of the heavenly tabernacle. The holydays, the new moon and the sabbath day in the Torah are also shadows of things to come. For example the Passover was a shadow which Messiah fulfilled, yet rather than abolish the observance of Passover as a result, Paul says “therefore let us keep the feast” (1Cor. 5:7-8). In fact these elements of Torahs have always been “shadows of things to come” even when Moses was stoning people to death for violating the Sabbath. We should ask ourselves this: When Moses was stoning people to death for violating Sabbath why did they not timidly lift a finger and say “Excuse me Moses, but the Sabbath is just a shadow…”? Clearly then the fact that it is a “shadow” does not mean that it should not be observed, in fact the scripture indicates that the fact that it is a shadow is all the more reason to observe it. Note especially that in Paul’s day these things were still shadows of things to come, there were also still elements of Torah which had not then seen their allegorical prophetic parallels, and in fact many of these parallels still lay in the future, in the last days, the second coming of Messiah and the Millennial Kingdom.

The Torah is a shadow of good things to come, therefore let us keep the Torah.

(See bonus info from Philo of Alexandria at the bottom of this blog.)

We are losing the home we have been renting for seven years! We must be out by March 1st! We literally do not know where we will be living in just three months! We need your help today!

Visit our Go Fund Me Page:

https://gofund.me/f551fb4f

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org or by Zelle

Click HERE to donate

Bonus:

Philo of Alexandria had encountered others in his day who taught that observing the actual commandments was not necessary at all, that all that was really important was to understand the deep truths which they, through symbolism and allegory, teach us. Philo responded to this false teaching as follows:

(89) For there are some men, who, looking upon written laws as symbols of things appreciable by the intellect, have studied some things with superfluous accuracy, and have treated others with neglectful indifference; whom I should blame for their levity; for they ought to attend to both classes of things, applying themselves both to an accurate investigation of invisible things, and also to an irreproachable observance of those laws which are notorious. (90) But now men living solitarily by themselves as if they were in a desert, or else as if they were mere souls unconnected with the body, and as if they had no knowledge of any city, or village, or house, or in short of any company of men whatever, overlook what appears to the many to be true, and seek for plain naked truth by itself, whom the sacred scripture teaches not to neglect a good reputation, and not to break through any established customs which divine men of greater wisdom than any in our time have enacted or established. (91) For although the seventh day is a lesson to teach us the power which exists in the uncreated God, and also that the creature is entitled to rest from his labours, it does not follow that on that account we may abrogate the laws which are established respecting it, so as to light a fire, or till land, or carry burdens, or bring accusations, or conduct suits at law, or demand a restoration of a deposit, or exact the repayment of a debt, or do any other of the things which are usually permitted at times which are not days of festival. (92) Nor does it follow, because the feast is the symbol of the joy of the soul and of its gratitude towards God, that we are to repudiate the assemblies ordained at the periodical seasons of the year; nor because the rite of circumcision is an emblem of the excision of pleasures and of all the passions, and of the destruction of that impious opinion, according to which the mind has imagined itself to be by itself competent to produce offspring, does it follow that we are to annul the law which has been enacted about circumcision. Since we shall neglect the laws about the due observance of the ceremonies in the temple, and numbers of others too, if we exclude all figurative interpretation and attend only to those things which are expressly ordained in plain words. (93) But it is right to think that this class of things resembles the body, and the other class the soul; therefore, just as we take care of the body because it is the abode of the soul, so also must we take care of the laws that are enacted in plain terms: for while they are regarded, those other things also will be more clearly understood, of which these laws are the symbols, and in the same way one will escape blame and accusation from men in general.
(Philo; On the Migration of Abraham)

Philo pointed out that the literal meaning of the commandments was like a body and the symbolic meaning was like a soul. Since the soul inhabits the body, the soul depends upon the care of the body. Likewise the symbolic truths of the Torah depend upon the observance of the commandments to have any real meaning. As we read in the Talmud that no passage loses its PASHAT (literal meaning) (b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a)

For example the Passover was a shadow which Messiah fulfilled, yet rather than abolish the observance of Passover as a result, Paul says “therefore let us keep the feast” (1Cor. 5:7-8).

Philo on the Akeda

Philo on the Akeda
By
James Scott Trimm

As promised in an earlier blog, a detailed look at Philo of Alexandria’s fascinating understanding of the Akeda:

1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
(Gen. 22:1-2 KJV)

…thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest…

Philo writes:
For the appropriate progeny of God are the perfect virtues, but that offspring which is akin to the wicked, is unregulated wickedness. But learn thou, if thou wilt, O my mind, not to bear children to thyself, after the example of that perfect man Abraham, who offered up to God “The beloved and only legitimate offspring of his soul,” the most conspicuous image of self-taught wisdom, by name Isaac; and who gave him up with all cheerfulness to be a necessary and fitting offering to God. “Having bound,” as the scripture says, this new kind of victim, either because he, having once tasted of the divine inspiration, did not condescend any longer to tread on any mortal truth, or because he saw that the creature was unstable and moveable, while he recognised the unhesitating firmness existing in the living God, on whom he is said to have believed.
(Unchangeableness of God 4 )

In Philo’s drash, Isaac represents “self-taught wisdom”

3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.
4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.
(Gen. 22:3-4)

…the place of which God had told him… the place afar off…

(1.63) According to the third signification, God himself is called a place, from the fact of his surrounding the universe, and being surrounded himself by nothing whatever, and from the fact of his being the refuge of all persons, and since he himself is his own district, containing himself and resembling himself alone. (1.64) I, indeed, am not a place, but I am in a place, and every existing being is so in a similar manner. So that which is surrounded differs from that which surrounds it; but the Deity, being surrounded by nothing, is necessarily itself its own place. And there is an evidence in support of my view of the matter in the following sacred oracle delivered with respect to Abraham: “He came unto the place of which the Lord God had told him: and having looked up with his eyes, he saw the place afar Off.” (1.65) Tell me, now, did he who had come to the place see it afar off? Or perhaps it is but an identical expression for two different things, one of which is the divine world, and the other, God, who existed before the world. (1.66) But he who was conducted by wisdom comes to the former place, having found that the main part and end of propitiation is the divine word (LOGOS), in which he who is fixed does not as yet attain to such a height as to penetrate to the essence of God, but sees him afar off; or, rather, I should say, he is not able even to behold him afar off, but he only discerns this fact, that God is at a distance from every creature, and that any comprehension of him is removed to a great distance from all human intellect. (1.67) Perhaps, however, the historian, by this allegorical form of expression, does not here mean by his expression, “place,” the Cause of all things; but the idea which he intends to convey may be something of this sort; –he came to the place, and looking up with his eyes he saw the very place to which he had come, which was a very long way from the God who may not be named nor spoken of, and who is in every way incomprehensible.
(On Dreams 63-67)

Philo offers two possible interpretations for “place” in verse 3. He explains that “place” can refer to “the divine world” or it could be taken to refer to “the cause of all things”.

Philo offers two possible interpretations for the “place afar off” in verse 4. He explains that the “place afar off” could refer to “God who existed before the world” or to “the God who may not be named nor spoken of, and who is in every way incomprehensible”.

Philo is telling us that wisdom can conduct us the LOGOS (Word) but this leaves us still afar to Ayn Sof.

The Word (LOGOS) is YHWH insofar as man can comprehend him. The Word is synonymous with divine reason, logic itself and the Torah. While Ayn Sof represents YHWH in his infinite nature, beyond human comprehension.

5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you,
6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.
(Gen. 22:5-6 KJV)

…the fire in his hand, and a knife…

(27) I have also, on one occasion, heard a more ingenious train of reasoning from my own soul, which was accustomed frequently to be seized with a certain divine inspiration, even concerning matters which it could not explain even to itself; which now, if I am able to remember it accurately, I will relate. It told me that in the one living and true God there were two supreme and primary powers–goodness and authority; and that by his goodness he had created everything, and by his authority he governed all that he had created; (28) and that the third thing which was between the two, and had the effect of bringing them together was reason (the LOGOS), for that it was owing to reason that God was both a ruler and good. Now, of this ruling authority and of this goodness, being two distinct powers, the cherubim were the symbols, but of reason the flaming sword was the symbol. For reason (the LOGOS) is a thing capable of rapid motion and impetuous, and especially the reason of the Creator of all things is so, inasmuch as it was before everything and passed by everything, and was conceived before everything, and appears in everything. (29) And do thou, O my mind, receive the impression of each of these cherubims unadulterated, that thus becoming thoroughly instructed about the ruling authority of the Creator of all things and about his goodness, thou mayest receive a happy inheritance; for immediately thou shalt understand the conjunction and combination of these imperishable powers, and learn in what respects God is good, his majesty arising from his sovereign power being all the time conspicuous; and in what he is powerful, his goodness, being equally the object of attention, that is this way thou mayest attain to the virtues which are engendered by these conceptions, namely, a love and a reverential awe of God, neither being uplifted to arrogance by any prosperity which may befall thee, having regard always to the greatness of the sovereignty of thy King; nor abjectly giving up hope of better things in the hour of unexpected misfortune, having regard, then, to the mercifulness of thy great and bounteous God. (30) And let the flaming sword teach thee that these things might be followed by a prompt and fiery reason combined with action, which never ceases being in motion with rapidity and energy to the selection of good objects, and the avoidance of all such as are evil. (31) Do you not see that even the wise Abraham, when he began to measure everything with a reference to God, and to leave nothing to the creature, took an imitation of the flaming sword, namely, “fire and a Sword,”{11} being eager to slay and to burn that mortal creature which was born of him, that so being raised on high it might soar up to God, the intellect being thus disentangled from the body.
(On the Cherubim 27-31)

In Philo’s Bible, the Greek Septuagint, the word for “knife” was μαχαιραν which can also mean “sword”.

Rashi says concerning the knife:

the knife: Heb. הַמַאֲכֶלֶת, so called because it consumes (אוֹכֶלֶת) the flesh, as it is stated (Deut. 32:42):“and My sword will consume (תֹּאכַלוּ) flesh,” and because it renders meat fit for consumption (אַכִילָה). Another explanation: This [knife] was מַאִכֶלֶת because the people of Israel still eat (אוֹכְלִים) the reward given for it. — [from Gen. Rabbah 56:3]

Philo sees the reference to fire and sword here as suggesting the “flaming sword” of the cherubim (Gen. 3:24) Philo sees the two Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant as representing “goodness” and “authority” with the sword “between the two… bringing them together” representing the LOGOS “Word”.

It is impossible here not to recall Paul’s words:

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,
(Hebrews 4:12 KJV)

This triad represents the Three Pillars of the Godhead, as presented in the Zohar, with the LOGOS, the Middle Pillar of the Godhead reconciling the Pillar of Severity (authority) and the Pillar of Mercy (goodness).

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
(Gen. 22:7-8 KJV)

…Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? … God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering…

(132) I very greatly wonder at those persons also, I mean at him who is fond of asking questions about what is in the middle between two extremes, and who says, “Behold the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt Offering?”{35} And also at him who answers, “My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering,” and who afterwards finds what is given as a ransom; “For behold a single ram was caught by his horns in a shrub of Sabec.” (133) Let us therefore consider what it is that he who is seeking doubts about, and what he who answers reveals, and in the third place what the thing is which was found. Now what the inquirer asks is something of this kind:–Behold the efficient cause, the fire; behold also the passive part, the material, the wood. Where is the third party, the thing to be effected? (134) As if he said, –Behold the mind, the fervid and kindled spirit; behold also the objects of intelligence, as it were so much material or fuel; where is the third thing, the act of perceiving? Or, again, –Behold the sight, behold the colour, where is the act of seeing? And, in short, generally, behold the external sense, behold the thing to be judge of; but where are the objects of the external sense, the material, the exertion of the feeling? (135) To him who puts these questions, answer is very properly made, “God will provide for himself.” For the third thing is the peculiar work of God; for it is owing to his providential arrangement that the mind comprehends, and the sight sees, and that every external sense is exerted. “And a ram is found caught by his horns;” that is to say, reason (LOGOS, The Word) is found silent and withholding its assent; (136) for silence is the most excellent of offerings, and so is a withholding of assent to those matters of which there are not clear proofs; therefore this is all that ought to be said, “God will provide for himself,”–he to whom all things are known, who illuminates the universe by the most brilliant of all lights, himself. But the other things are not to be said by creatures over whom great darkness is poured; but quiet is a means of safety in darkness.
(On Flight and Finding 132-136)

Philo understands the “fire” to represent “the efficient cause” and thus “the mind, the fervid and kindled spirit”.

Philo understands the “wood” to represent “the material” and thus “the objects of intelligence”.

Philo regularly speaks in terms of an active cause and a passive subject. For example he speaks of the Creation saying:

…in all existing things there must be an active cause, and a passive subject; and that the active cause is the intellect of the universe, thoroughly unadulterated and thoroughly unmixed, superior to virtue and superior to science, superior even to abstract good or abstract beauty; (9) while the passive subject is something inanimate and incapable of motion by any intrinsic power of its own, but having been set in motion, and fashioned, and endowed with life by the intellect, became transformed into that most perfect work, this world.
(On Creation 8-9)

So now we come to the ram, which Philo understands as “the act of perceiving” “the peculiar work of God” i.e. “reason” (LOGOS, The Word”).

Elsewhere Philo identifies the LOGOS with the Messiah:

“The head of all things is the eternal Word (Logos) of the eternal God, under which, as if it were his feet or other limbs, is placed the whole world, over which He passes and firmly stands. Now it is not because Messiah is Lord that He passes and sits over the whole world, for His seat with His Father and God but because for its perfect fullness the world is in need of the care and superintendence of the best ordered dispensation, and for its own complete piety, of the Divine Word (Logos), just as living creatures (need) a head, without which it is impossible to live.”
(Q&A on Exodus, II, 117)

(For more on Philo’s understanding of the Word or LOGOS click here)

Here we again see the Three Pillars of the Godhead. The active “male” principle of the Father represents Chokmah (Wisdom) which impregnates the passive “female” principle of the Mother, which represents BInah (Understanding) and the Middle Pillar of the Godhead, the Son of Yah, who reconciles these is represented by Da’at (Knowledge) the process of learning, the LOGOS, The Word.

Philo’s teaching here is not only in line with the Kabbalah but closely parallels the wisdom of the Tanya. When we study Torah, the Wisdom of Torah gestates in our Understanding and gives birth to Knowledge of Torah. This is what is meant by having the Torah in our inward parts.

Philo came the place of the LOGOS, a place as close as he could, as a limited human being, get to comprehending YHWH and where he could see Ayn Sof afar. He came to offer his self-taught, human wisdom of this world as an offering to YHWH, yet when Abraham was about to apply the “sword” of the LOGOS, YHWH intervened at this place and substituted the LOGOS, the heavenly wisdom for Abraham’s earthly self-taught wisdom.

[9] And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.
[10] And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
[11] And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
[12] And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
[13] And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

So Philo supplies us with a nice conclusion when he writes:

And so Isaac is saved, God supplying a gift instead of him, and honouring him who was willing to make the offering in return for the piety which he had exhibited. But the action of the father, even though it was not ultimately given effect to, is nevertheless recorded and engraved as a complete and perfect sacrifice,not only in the sacred scriptures, but also in the middle of those who read them.
(On Abraham 177)

Philo saw the Word, the Messiah, as “a complete and perfect sacrifice” not only giving salvation to Abraham and Isaac, but to you and me who read and understand the account as well!

We need your help today! Donations this month have been very low!

Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org.

Or click HERE to donate

Isaiah 53 and the Heel of Esau (Video)

This video teaching reveals the identity of Messiah, how that identity has been obscured by Christendom, and how this ministry is unique in our work to remove the heel of Esau which obscures the identity of Messiah! And it is all in the Zohar!