Mosaic Law

[Nayto]

I’ve always wondered why in the Mosaic Law are there things which we just ignore. Some examples are the mixing of fabrics, not “marring” beards, wearing tassels, etc. These things don’t seem to make sense within the context of the Spirit of the Law. Israel was too afraid to receive the Spirit of the Law because they were afraid of God, however Moses went up and whether he received the Spirit of the Law and applied or directly received the commandments he conveyed from God, we don’t know. We just know that the commandments Moses gave were very specific. There are aspects of it which just outright don’t apply today given changes in food and advances in technology. So instead of engaging in cognitive dissonance, I’d like to understand this scripturally.

“Now on the matter of the Law, we ought to walk carefully with the following in mind: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” - Deu 4:2

Also Christ said, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” - Mat 5:19

This is by no means some kind of instruction, but rather a springboard for discussion and understanding. Let me reiterate: There seems to be cognitive dissonance on the subject with certain boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed, and the illusions of boundaries where people refuse to go in their minds. This is my own experience and I imagine it to be the same in others. Regardless, understanding the Law is a slow, prayerful, meditative process which requires patience and study.

“If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” Deu 30:10-14

The law is most definitely written on our innermost parts as Israelites, and while we will never keep it perfectly, we should always strive to. Transgression of the Law is sin (1Jn 3:4), and we must always strive to remove sin in our lives. With the above passage from Deuteronomy in mind, we have no excuse to avoid the law because it is too difficult. Christ Himself also said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt 11:29-30) and “If ye love Me, keep my commandments.” (Jn 14:15).

Now to get to the matter at hand, we know that the Law has been established since creation. Adam and Even sinned, therefor the Law was established, as sin is transgression of the Law. By this we can infer that the Law existed before Moses gave it at Sinai.

Now Moses says a few things which are noteworthy in this context. Firstly:
“And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” – Deu 5:1-3

Here Moses notes that this is the covenant made at Horeb. In my understanding Horeb and Sinai are the same thing, and this is the place where God gave the ten commandments and Moses went up to get the rest of the Law. So Moses is referring to this specific instance of giving the Law. Afterwards Moses says that this is NOT the covenant made with their fathers, but with the Israelites right there and then. Christ says, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Mat 5:18) and ”And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” (Luk 16:17) Surely the Law is established at the very least with all of Israel, and probably all of Adam’s descendants, for all time. By this we can infer that it was only that instance of the Law, that version which was to be a covenant. Moses expands further:

“Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it… in the land that floweth with milk and honey.” (Deu 6:3)
“… thou shalt teach them [commandments given by Moses], that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.” (Deu 5:31)

“All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.” (Deu 8:1)

There are a few other verses like this, but I thought three would suffice for now. The point is that the laws which Moses gave seem only to apply to those Israelites who were to live in Judea, the land of Canaan, so that it might go well with them in that land. As we know, Judea was completely removed from Israel at some point in history, whether you see it as 70AD when the Romans invaded or later when Asia-minor and the Middle East were lost to the mongrel horse 600 years later. Either way, Israel no longer occupies that area.

Something else which is interesting is the Sabbath and how it has changed. Take the period of mana gathering in Exodus for example: “See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” (Exo 16:29)

Israel wasn’t even allowed to move around on the Sabbath.

Then we have the Sabbath law given by Moses in Deuteronomy: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.” (Deu 5:14)

Interestingly, here it doesn’t refer to leaving one’s house, but only that one should not work or allow any living thing to work on that day.

Then we have the narrative of Matthew 12, where Christ and His disciples take ears of corn on the Sabbath, and are even walking around! This is clear contradiction of both Exodus and Deuteronomy above. Is it even possible for Christ to break the Law? No, it isn’t, although He does claim to be Lord of the Sabbath anyway (Mat 12:18). He then says, “What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.”

Christ here directly says that it is fine to do well on the Sabbath. He even recounts the Law being “broken” by David when he was hunger, but it was okay because David did well on the Sabbath. To sum this up, Christ says “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27). I know that Bill Finck has touched on this briefly, referencing Hosea as saying that our Sabbaths will be taken away, however this still doesn’t take away from the difference itself.

None of what Christ has said is registered in the Law of Moses, however it is still different to the Law of Moses. This is further demonstrated by the laws on divorce. The Law of Moses says: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.” (Deu 24:1-2)

But Christ says: “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matt 19:7-9)

So in keeping the Mosaic Law, the Israelites were actually breaking the Spirit of the Law! Here we see clearly that the Law given by Moses was wrong. Yet again Christ says that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”, also He says regarding the Law “but from the beginning”. From the beginning we can see in Genesis that the man and woman are to become one flesh (Gen 2:24), and how else can one break that except if they become one flesh with another?

To summarise I will give the following few points:
• The Law existed before Moses gave it at Sinai.
• It seems that the Mosaic Law was given only to be practiced in Judea.
• The Mosaic Law differs from the true Spirit of the Law in some areas.

Having said all this, I think the Mosaic Law offers critical insight into the Law and is our number one reference. It is clearly the most comprehensive giving of the Law; however it is simply an application of the Spirit of the Law, which existed before Moses. I say all this for the sake of moving forward in our understanding and pleasing Father, also for the review of my fellow Israelite kinsmen.

Please let me know what you think.

[IdentityChristian]

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
2 Corinthians 3:17

[Nayto]

The following makes very little sense to me in the case of the Edomites:

Deuteronomy 23:7-8

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a sojourner in his land. The children of the third generation that are born unto them shall enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Can anyone explain?

[CairinDaithe]

The following makes very little sense to me in the case of the Edomites:

Deuteronomy 23:7-8

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a sojourner in his land. The children of the third generation that are born unto them shall enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Can anyone explain?

I've troubled over those verses, as well.

It's a little different in the Ferrar Fenton.

You shall not exclude an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not exclude a Mitzerite, because you were a foreigner in his country. The children that they produce may be naturalized with the Ever-Living after three generations.

Although this really doesn't help much... It somehow makes sense to me intuitively after reading Obadiah. Like they were worthy of embracing, until they became a mongrelized race that acts contrary to the race of Jacob.

[Kentucky]

The following makes very little sense to me in the case of the Edomites:

Deuteronomy 23:7-8

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a sojourner in his land. The children of the third generation that are born unto them shall enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Can anyone explain?

The Masoretic text, as in the KJV, is a very poor translation. The word should have been Syrian instead of Edomite. The Hebrew characters (for Syria and Edom) were very similar and could have been a scribal error or intentional. The Syrians at that time were Israelites. The Bible never contradicts itself. It is usually man who has not yet reconciled a contradiction. There are also interpolations that work adversely against our people's faith, thinking the Word is not in harmony with the rest of Scripture. It's been my experience that there is always an answer to these apparent flaws; it just takes time and patience to find them.

Mark

[Nayto]

The following makes very little sense to me in the case of the Edomites:

Deuteronomy 23:7-8

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a sojourner in his land. The children of the third generation that are born unto them shall enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Can anyone explain?

The Masoretic text, as in the KJV, is a very poor translation. The word should have been Syrian instead of Edomite. The Hebrew characters (for Syria and Edom) were very similar and could have been a scribal error or intentional. The Syrians at that time were Israelites. The Bible never contradicts itself. It is usually man who has not yet reconciled a contradiction. There are also interpolations that work adversely against our people's faith, thinking the Word is not in harmony with the rest of Scripture. It's been my experience that there is always an answer to these apparent flaws; it just takes time and patience to find them.

Mark

Thanks for the info! It's funny how "he is thy brother" can make it more confusing, but if the Assyrians were also descendants of Israel then it makes sense.

[wmfinck]

Well, I am just getting to the end of all of the forum posts I had missed this summer, when I had no time for the forum. I suggest that Nayto check out the following podcasts which I did back in 2011, which discuss our relationship to the Old Covenant law:

http://christogenea.org/content/christo ... ant-part-1

http://christogenea.org/content/christo ... ant-part-2

Also, as Mark answered in brief, concerning Deuteronomy 23:7, Clifton wrote a lengthy paper here:

http://emahiser.christogenea.org/watchm ... march-2000

and I added a few supporting notes here:

http://emahiser.christogenea.org/notes-wtl-23

[Nayto]

Okay I read Clifton's paper and the notes which was great.

I'm about halfway through that first sermon and I wanted to give some commentary while it's fresh in my head:

You say that if you are currently committing some act of sin or have committed, you should not judge any kindred on that sin. However Paul also said in 1Corinthians 5:9-13, "I had written to you in the letter, not to associate with fornicators: not at all with the fornicators of this Society, or with the covetous, or rapacious, or idolaters, seeing that youare therefore obliged to come out from the Society. But presently I have written to you not to associate with any brother if he is being designated a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or abusive, or drunken, or rapacious; not even to eat with such a wretch. What is it to me to judge those outside? Not at all should you judge those within you. But those outside Yahweh judges; “you will expel the wicked from amongst yourselves.”"

I think it's easy to get mixed up with the word, "judge". It is in fact a very rich word which has all sorts of associations based on the context of the word and unfortunately there are some very negative contexts for this word in a Christian context thanks to judeo-churchianity. Surely if you are going to not associate with someone -- as Paul mentioned -- because of their sin, you have essentially judged them. To judge is to come to a conclusion about something and that conclusion has consequences of action. I then judge that my kinsman is sleeping with a mongrel and choose not to associate with him. We on a personal level must judge others and choose our actions accordingly. Now there is judgement on a legal level, where the judgement comes with punishment or mercy. I think Paul means that once someone is cast outside of our society for their sin -- or we have left a society for its sin -- then God will decide on the legal action to take. Until that person we longer associate with has repented and discontinued their act of sin, then we will be merciful and take them in once again. Even the act of mercy has judgement attached to it. It means we have judged them as guilty, but in their repentance for that act we will exact no punishment. I think the point that Paul was trying to make is that we need to keep our society righteous and set apart as a holy priesthood, judging and excommunicating those who sin -- without presuming to exact punishment outside of said excommunication -- and leaving it to God to do what He wants with them.

Christ outlined a good process for disputes among kindred: "Now if your brother should do wrong, you must go ensure him between you and him only. If perhaps he should hear you, you have gained your brother. But if he should not hear, take with you one or two besides, in order that ‘by the mouth of two witnesses, or three, is every matter established’. And if he should ignore them, tell it to the assembly. Then if also he should ignore the assembly, he must be to you as the heathens and the taxcollectors."

Again excommunication seems to be inferred. It's interesting that Christ didn't mention outright sin, in that it might just be plain obvious that if for example someone is race-mixing, they should be excommunicated wherein lies judgement.

It naturally follows that on a personal level one can judge. If I have been a race-mixer but repented, then it behooves me to still disassociate myself from other race-mixers and see that they are not a part of the community. However, let's assume that we are not in an Israelite country where God's law is the law of the country. Let's say that someone race-mixes. Shouldn't that person be put to death? What if the judge (as in a civil servant) has race-mixed but repented? What if the judge has not race-mixed before? It's a very tricky situation. I suppose our corrupt society and lack of direct political power enables us to leave it alone and simply disassociate ourselves and leave judgement up to God. However, mercy from God is not a "new covenant" concept. Just look at the book of Jonah where the city was forgiven. How should that city have moved forward in terms of judgement? If someone race-mixes should they spare his life because God had mercy on them for the same sin? In having mercy they are also allowing corruption to take place which in itself is a sin! Were they then to simply excommunicate him? Maybe.

The next thing I have to mention is the transition phase which was mentioned, where the apostles simply said to the new ekklessia, "Since we have heard that some coming out from among us have troubled you with words, ravaging your souls with things which we have not ordered, it was determined by us, being of one accord, to send chosenmen to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have given their souls on behalf of the Name of our Prince Yahshua Christ. So we have sent Iouda and Silas and they by
word announcing these things. For it was determined by the Holy Spirit and by us to impose not any greater burden upon you but these necessities, to abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which keeping yourselves you shall do well. Farewell."

I agree that this was a transition phase, and amongst the morass of pharisaic leaven it was probably just simpler to tell them to do those things. However this does not mean that the sum total of the law lies there in, or that the rest of the law was cast aside. I find it interesting that they did not mention "love your kindred as you would love yourself". Surely this is a great error on their part? I know it is mentioned in letters (especially John), but if this was going to be the message that summarized what they were to do then it should have been included! My point is that this is by no means some perfect account of how Israel was to conduct themselves for the rest of their time on Earth. Yes, it was a transition and certain things were necessary, but we are no longer in a transition.

None of the original law has fallen away. We know for a fact that even before Moses gave the law at Sinai that there was some law which governed how God's people were to act, otherwise He would not have judged Sodom and Gomorrah! Whether or not this law set in the foundations of creation is the same law which Moses gave at Sinai is the scope of my first post in this thread, and I do not think they are exactly the same. I would say that we still need to keep this law and it is not plagued with pharisaical leaven and meaningless practices. Everything in it is meaningful and purposeful. Otherwise why would we no longer be able to eat pork? Surely if the law has fallen then we could eat it? But pork is unhealthy so eating it comes with the punishment of being unhealthy, therefore the law must still be in effect in the very foundations of nature, science and creation itself! What's more, we are no longer being chased by the law, but rather we are striving to attain Christ's example through the Holy Spirit and the law written on our hearts. We are in a position of knowledge and the ability to seek our matters of the Kingdom and God's ways to try to ascertain what His ways are. To those whom some was given, more knowledge and wisdom concerning the law will be given. We understand more than ever that telling someone to get rid of their mustache and grow a beard or to put tassels on their clothes is utterly ridiculous (although I know some CI still do that). There are weightier matters of the law which govern greater things in our lives which need to be sought out and meditated on. We need the courage to go up to the proverbial Sinai and consult with God Himself instead of asking Moses to go get it.

Those are my thoughts for now. I hope I haven't gotten ahead of the sermon, but if I have then take it is confirmation, whatever it is worth.

[Nayto]

I listened for another 5 minutes and had more comments

Obviously we will never attain this law completely, but we must strive for it always even though it will not save us. I mean, we need Christ because the law is currently in effect! "Do we then nullify the law by faith? Certainly not! Rather we establish the law."

If we keep a part of the law we must keep it all, right? Yes, but only when it comes to the salvation of Israel and by extension our salvation personally. Does this mean we need to forsake keeping what parts of the law we can? I seriously don't think so.

I find the book of Ecclesiastes to be an interesting study in this matter. The scribes make an interesting comment at the end: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." For me, the book ultimately means that nothing we do matters once we have died, except the keeping of the law. Sure all of Israel will be saved, but there is still judgement in the next life based on the current one!

Paul mentions the following to Timothy, "Having struggled the good struggle, I finished the race. I kept the faith. 8 Hereafter the crown of righteousness is reserved for me, which the Prince will render to me in that day, the Righteous Judge. And not only to me but also to all those loving His manifestation."

With his essay in Romans in mind on how faith works, this makes complete sense. But what about those who have not finished the race successfully? Are they not to receive a crown? If faith is rewarded with righteousness, is righteousness the reward in itself? No, it isn't. Because Abraham was righteous, he was promised to have a son who would become a nation. So clearly Paul is going to receive a reward over and above his kindred in the next life. I am not disputing that all of Israel won't be saved but rather that some are awarded more than others based on their conduct in the first life.

In this way, our faith in Christ established moral conduct and our love and faith for God is shown by this conduct. In this way one earns more eternal reward. Therefore even though the law cannot save us (the salvation which God promised to ALL Israel), we are still judged by God based on our actions in relation to the law. Even on a personal level our actions in relation to the law leads to blessings or curses in the current life.

[Vandal]

The following makes very little sense to me in the case of the Edomites:

Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a sojourner in his land. The children of the third generation that are born unto them shall enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

"Edomite" is an incorrect translation. It should probably be rendered "Aramite." Resh and Daleth were probably confused in the text, just as it is quite easy to confuse R with D in less than perfect penmanship.

EDOMITE::: אדומי

ARAMITE::: ארמי

ד ("D") and ר ("R") are easily confused.

Resh and Daleth in Hebrew, are almost identical, just as in the Germanic, Raed and Daeg.

resh daleth comparison.png (10.65 KiB) Viewed 2424 times

Note that the "Phoenecian" script shown in the image is actually "Paleo-hebrew" and is contiguous to the Germanic Runes.

Hebrew Resh is Phoenician Rah and German Raed.
Hebrew Daleth is Phoenician Dah and German Daeg.
Hebrew Shinn is Phoenician Shi and German Shaw.
Hebrew Peh is Phoenician Pe and German Perd.
Hebrew Gimmel is Phoenician Ge and German Gef or Geb.

Ergo, Germans used a variant of Paleo-Hebrew or Phonecian. Ergo, Germans thus were Hebrews.