July 2001 Issue - Why the Church teaches that Jesus Christ is NOT the Messiah
There are some in the church who would immediately take issue with this statement. In fact, I would hope that all brethren would take issue with the statement, but we need to address a critical issue that is affecting everyone of us in the faith. So, lay down your armor plate, sheath your sword, and let us consider together a criticism of the church by the Messiah Himself.
We are not going to split hairs between the Greek derivation of Christ and the Hebrew derivation of Messiah. Let us agree for the sake of this discussion that they are the same title for the Anointed One.
Do you
recall Yeshua's particular complaint against the church of Pergamum?
But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold
the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block
before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit
acts of immorality. REV 2:14
In particular, Yeshua speaks of a teaching of Balaam that is a stumbling
block before the sons of Israel. What exactly is the teaching of Balaam
and how is it a stumbling block before the sons of Israel. Who exactly are
the sons of Israel He is referring to?
If you recall, Balaam was a prophet hired by Balak to curse the children
of Israel under the leadership of Moses. The children of Israel were approaching
the promised land and Balak didn't want Israel to be around. So, he hired
Balaam (a real prophet of God) to set up altars and speak a curse from God
upon Israel. Balaam tried to explain to Balak that he could only speak what
God said. On several occasions, Balaam spoke, but only blessing came forth.
Balak was angry that a curse was not spoken. It was at this point that Balaam
offered a different counsel.
If you want to harm Israel, Balaam counseled, you can do it another way.
The teaching of Balaam was to get the sons of Israel to marry foreign daughters.
This would cause Israel to loose their distinctive definition as being the
children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This would mix other customs with
theirs and thus diminish the value of their heritage. This would change
the teaching so that Moses was just one of their teachers
and move them gradually to a different point of view. In the end, the counsel
was to assimilate Israel and make them just like anyone else, by separating
them from one another and removing their identity.
The teaching of Balaam is to tell the sons of Israel that they no longer
have a covenant with God through Moses. The teaching of Balaam diminishes
and removes the Torah (the teaching of Moses).
Today, the teaching of Balaam is rampant in the church. It comes in the
form of the following precept: Jesus Christ came with the purpose to do
away with (fulfill) the temple service, the Torah (Law), and alter the customs
of Moses. The teaching of the church is to replace (at a minimum to diminish)
Israel's identity as the chosen people, the teaching of Moses in the
Torah, and to alter the customs of Sabbath and Biblical holidays. The church
has done a pretty good job of doing this. Today, a new Messianic believer
will run right into these stumbling blocks with churchmen disputing Sabbath,
holidays, and the idea of keeping the Torah. In fact, this is the focal
point of discussion for many new Messianic brethren as they wrestle with
the disappointment and shock of being rejected by church brethren for the
sin of seeking the truth.
The spiritual reality is that holding to Moses and the Torah is in direct
conflict with the teaching of the church (the teaching of Balaam). It follows
that the church's dispute even takes issue with the Messiah when He speaks
of Moses and the Torah.
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come
to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth
pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,
until all is accomplished. MAT 5:17-18
The Messiah has said that the Torah is still with us and valid. However,
this is not enough to convince the church, because of the teaching of Balaam.
They dispute the meaning of the word fulfill.@
However, it is clear from the context and any basic dictionary that the
word fulfill@ is not a synonym for abolish.@ The church teaches the opposite
of Messiah Yeshua and forms new meanings for words on this point.
Yeshua emphasized that not one part, down to the letters and strokes of
letters, would diminish prior to heaven and earth passing away. I would
remind everyone that heaven and earth are still with us, therefore, every
part of the Torah is still valid and with us. All has not been accomplished
yet. That is clearly evident with the subject of the second coming. There
is more Scripture about the second coming in the Old Testament than in the
New Testament. All has not yet been accomplished.
Clearly, the church has failed to understand and reconcile completely the
teaching of Yeshua. Yeshua is the pinnacle and focus of our New Covenant
faith. Yeshua was emphatic that His purpose was not to do away with the
teaching of Moses and the Prophets. But what does this have to do with denying
the Messiahship of Yeshua? Before we answer, let's deal with those brethren
who assert the teaching of the Apostle Paul.
It is the Apostle Paul and his letters to the Romans, Colossians, and Galatians
that serve as the primary reference material for the church's teaching against
Torah. The church contends that Paul took issue with Sabbath (promoting
first day worship). They argue that the Galatians were told not to circumcise
and not to keep the commandments of the Jews. Selected verses from Romans
and Colossians are used to fend off Sabbath and holidays. With Paul leading
the charge, they claim that other writers join in to say that Yeshua said,
All foods are clean and Peter had a vision to eat non-kosher foods. Finally,
they interpret that the writer of Hebrews flatly says the New Testament
has replaced the Old Testament.
There is an obvious conflict here. You can't have Yeshua saying the Torah
will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away, and then have the Apostle
Paul say it was all nailed to the cross, or when the resurrection happened,
or when the Holy Spirit came, or when the New Testament was written, etc.
Moses, Yeshua, and the Apostles must all be in agreement or our faith is
corrupt and self-destructing in itself. A house divided against itself will
not stand.
The irony of all this is that the Apostle Peter addresses this controversy
in his final letter. There he comments how some men take the words of Paul
and twist them.... as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these
things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught
and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their
own destruction. 2PE 3:16
Peter says that there are some hard (difficult) things said by Paul
that are twisted by unstable and untaught men. What things do you think
Peter is referring to? Remember when Yeshua made the outrageous statement
about hating fathers and mothers.
If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife
and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot
be My disciple. LUK 14:26
Isn't Yeshua teaching us that the fifth commandment (honor your father
and mother) of the ten commandments is now done away with? Isn't He teaching
us to hate our fathers and mothers, the opposite of the commandment?
Of course not! We all recognize that Yeshua is making a superlative comparison
between God and man. God takes priority, even over family members such as
fathers, mothers, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even our own lives.
If we can see this teaching example in its proper context, then why do we
say Paul was doing something else when he disputed the Galatians who elevated
circumcision, and legalism above the grace and sacrifice of Yeshua. Surely,
we can see that anything put in priority above the Messiah is wrong. Like
Yeshua's teaching, that doesn't mean that Paul is teaching that the other
things are bad or done away with.
It is the Apostle Paul's testimony that he is a bond servant of Messiah
Yeshua (bond servants and their commissioning is the Torah). Paul asserts
his identity as being an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised
the eight day, trained in the Torah by Gamaliel, a keeper of the Torah to
Pharisaic standards, and observing Sabbath and Nazerite vows. Acts 17:2
clearly states it was Paul's custom to keep Sabbath. How can the Apostle
to the Gentiles be a keeper of the Law (Acts 21:24) and teach anyone something
different from it?
I can show you how. You have to twist Paul's words while he is teaching
the priority of the Messiah and use them against Moses. This is not a new
idea; this is the ancient teaching of Balaam. Render the teaching of Moses
as null and void.
Back to our original question and discussion point. The church teaches that
Jesus came to do away with temple service, the Torah (Law), and alter the
customs of Moses. Interestingly enough, this very statement is in the New
Testament but not in the way the church teaches.
At the trial of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, a group of men conspired
to bring false evidence against him that would shut him up. Acts 6 describes
the conspiracy and the charges brought against him.
But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, including
both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up
and argued with Stephen. And yet they were unable to cope with the wisdom
and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Then they secretly induced men
to say, We
have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.
And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came
upon him and dragged him away, and brought him before the Council. And they
put forward false witnesses who said, this man incessantly speaks against
this holy place, and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene,
Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed
down to us. ACT 6:9-14
Please note the false charge of blasphemy made
against Stephen. This man speaks against Moses and God. This man teaches
that Jesus of Nazereth came to destroy the temple, do away with the Torah,
and alter the customs of Moses (like Sabbath and holidays). This is
the same teaching of the church today. How is it possible that the church
teaches as truth the very same false charge made against Stephen? Obviously,
the New Testament (the reference for church teaching) is in conflict with
the church of today. So, which is it? Is the New Testament inaccurate here,
or is the teaching of the church incorrect? Before we answer, consider this
final piece of evidence. Paul was one of the leaders in this conspiracy
against Stephen. He is the one who gives us this testimony in the book of
Acts.
And Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him [Stephen] to death. And
on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and
they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except
the apostles. But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house;
and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.
YAVOH,
He is Coming
is a monthly newsletter published as an outreach ministry of Lion and Lamb
Ministries Inc. The ministry is a non-profit organization with an end time
prophetic message in a Messianic Jewish context. Subscription to YAVOH,
He is Coming is without cost and supported only by donation.
Permission is granted to reprint any article in YAVOH, He is Coming with attribution given to YAVOH.
|
|