In both testaments, the transformation that the New Covenant secures is described as everlasting and irreversible by reason of an ontological change of nature (“partakers of the divine nature”) from which, by scriptural definition, it is impossible to be separated.

This means that where justification and vital union are concerned, the moment saving faith is quickened and one is made partaker of the divine nature (the indestructible seed of the Spirit and the Word), one has perfectly and completely fulfilled the law, once and forever by the imputation of Christ’s own righteousness. This imputation is not based only in Christ’s death (His ‘passive’ obedience) but also by His perfect keeping of the law throughout the whole balance of His spotless life (His ‘active’ obedience). This obedience was necessarily wrought out in our representative humanity, the last Adam.

So not only His death, but His life of perfect obedience to the law (the examined Lamb) is imputed in the full to the least believer in Jesus (not to be confused with the barren professor).

You see then how and why it is that every believer has perfectly and forever fulfilled the law and received its blessing and not its curse. Notwithstanding, this inward reality does not exempt, but rather more fully lends the believer to divine discipline when the law is presumptuously broken or slighted in the outward life and practice of those who have their standing in the grace of the new covenant (Ps 89:28-36)..

Living union with this new nature (i.e., the ‘holy seed’) guarantees fruit “after its own kind”. The impulse to love and keep the law is built right into the seed! It is the evidence of the indwelling Spirit of Christ.

This is manifest in the believer’s life by varying measure and degree, but where it is the real, ‘everlasting life and righteousness of God Himself’, it is not possible that this seed NOT bear some measure of fruit, whether 30, 60, or 100. There is no law against the fruits of the Spirit (“against which there is no law”), because it is only the Spirit’s fruit that fulfills the law. Whether Old or New Testament times, the law could never be kept by the dead!

The child of God may vary in maturity and fruitfulness, according to the purging, pruning, and the deep dealings of divine discipline (the true mark of sonship), but every child of God, regardless of stature, has finally and forever fulfilled the law through the resurrection miracle of vital regeneration. This eternal union of shared nature is mediated by the Spirt’s quickening of the revelation of the gospel, the lively Word that divides, that kills carnal confidence, even as it quickens the dead.

From this time of vital quickening (resurrection), the believer has been translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, is seated at Christ’s right hand, far above all principality and power, and secure for eternal glory, provided there has been a true, Spirit quickened resurrection out of a true, Spirit quickened death to carnal confidence.

This is not MADE true but PROVEN true by the day of testing. The test finds out whether the faith (there are different kinds of faith) is born of God, because of this rule: “that which is born of God overcomes the world.” It must; it cannot do otherwise, because it is born of God.

The proof and evidence of this new, indwelling divine nature is love of the law and holy longing to be evermore perfectly conformed to our law keeping Savior, since it is He who gave it by the mediation of angels.

So every believer is, by definition, and we could say ‘ontological necessity’, a lover, if not always a perfect keeper of the law, else he or she is not alive to God, as the day of testing will find out, or the day of final judgment expose.

The post How Faith in Jesus Fulfills the Law Once and Forever appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

We started a study on Galatians here and I watched the first part of your Galatians study. At some point you say smthg like “The Law is related to the flesh”, which 9ch is profoundly true. This is why Paul uses the metaphor of the dead old nature and says the Law has no bearings on those who are dead (Romans 7:2-4).

Are we to assume (as many others) that the first chirch with all these “tens of thousands of Jews who believed and who also fervently keep the Law” was not aware of the change that occured and the principle in Rom 7:2-4? I can perhaps summarize like this – could the first Christian Jews NOT KEEP the Law? Could they? What was the take of Art?

I just went over to our website and saw over to the side a link entitled, ‘Thoughts on Torah Observance‘ or something like that. The article was one that Art liked and had posted to the old BI site.

Also, there is a recording entitled, Paul’s Vehemence Against the Law, that took place in Pearl’s trailer with others interacting. Art’s break through convictions were greatly influenced by a book I had recently given him, which you will want to get if you can find it. It is, “Of God or Man?: Light from Galatians”, by John Metcalfe. Art did indeed observe Friday night ‘shabbat’ but not with the religious seriousness or zeal distinctive of adventists and others who see it as a make or break requirement of the believing life.

Scripture recognizes that what has come about in the revelation of the mystery of the gospel has brought a unique dispensation of responsibility towards the law. Any Jew who could read or hear Acts 13:38-39 would, or SHOULD know that the law can contribute NOTHING towards justification, nor towards the receiving of the Spirit. Nor can the failure of Jew or gentile to observe any of its requirements change their position in Christ, as forever dead and forever married to another. So clearly, even if some continued to keep the law as an issue of stewardship, and not of justification, it was crucial to understand that the law could play no role in either causing or measuring one’s standing in Christ. It could not contribute to justification, just as circumcision and sabbath keeping could not be used as a measurement to test if one were indeed justified.

It is a wholly different matter where the fruits of the Spirit are concerned. Though the fruits of the Spirit are fruits, and therefore not the cause of salvation, still, every believer will agree that they are a sure result of salvation, and therefore, in that sense, an indicator of true regeneration. This is NOT true of the law, because the law is something that man can (‘seem’) do in his natural power. That is why to depend on the law is to depend on self, and this is Paul’s great concern. In order for grace to be grace, nothing within human reach or power can be permitted to contribute anything towards regeneration. This is axiomatic for Paul. Nothing possible to the flesh can be permitted to contribute or assist in the miracle of regeneration. Otherwise, grace is mixed and the glory of an unilateral covenant is shared with something that of or from man, and this can never be, as Paul makes clear that even faith is a gift of divine working.

In the same way, neglect of the outward ordinances and institutions by gentiles (as “loosed” from circumcision, sabbath, temple ritual, etc.) is not regarded by the apostles as an indication that one does not have salvation, obviously. But what does this mean for Jews? Do Jews have a different stewardship of responsibility from gentiles? We know for sure that they do in the coming millennium, but what of now? Regardless of whether the Jew felt conscience-bound to the law as to his stewardship as a Jew, it was NOT permitted by apostolic revelation for him to conceive of that stewardship as contributing anything towards his justification. But what about the works of the law being an indicator that a Jew was regenerate in the same way that the fruits of the Spirit are an indicator that one has the Spirit? Paul seems to leave this question open to conscience as long as this does not become a source of dependency for salvation or to exalt above other believers of different persuasion, (“let every person be fully persuaded in their own mind”; and “whatever is not of faith is sin”; Ro 14:5, 14, 23).

So how far is one “free” from the law, not as a means of salvation, of course, but as a measurement of whether one is saved? I ask this because we know that to be completely devoid of the fruits of the Spirit is a sign that one is destitute of the Spirit. And since the fruits of the Spirit have much in common with the moral demands of the law, what can be the difference? That difference is ALL the difference, and it is Paul’s primary point. One is possible apart from the Spirit and the other is not. However short it may fall of the law’s full intention (perfection), it is possible for an unregenerate person to keep the law’s requirements to some (obviously imperfect) extent. Of course NT revelation makes clear that such imagined fulfillment of the law falls terribly short of what the law is really requiring. In contrast, the fruits of the Spirit is only possible by the power of the Spirit. There’s the great difference. It’s the difference between the living and the dead, and this is Paul’s point. He’s not at war with the law but the presumptions of humanism.

Note also, the Spirit is only possible and lawfully conferred where the sacrifice is perfect, which alone can justify from all sin, not only momentarily and provisionally, as in some “Christian” thought, but this is a righteousness that pre-supposes an entirely different source and residence. Already translated into the age to come, the born again believer is once and for all “sit down” (an idiom for finished finality) with Christ at the Father’s right hand, forever positioned far above all principality and power. This is a wholly other realm of existence. This new, eternal life of that subsists in union with God’s own life, exists entirely outside and beyond the reach of principalities and powers. It is “hid with God in Christ”. The proof of this reality is the manifest life and fruits of the Spirit. The presence and power of this life, the true seed, born of the Word and the Spirit, is sure and certain guarantee against lawless behavior, or disregard for the law, or any part of God’s holy government. This becomes logically impossible (“how …?; Ro 6;2), since the very Spirit who commanded all these things is one in vital union with the spirit of the “true”, and therefore overcoming believer. So there is no danger of ‘anti-nomiansm’ that declares “freedom” from the law (in that perverse and misguided sense).

So as long as Jews were not depending on the law, which is to say themselves for their justification, or looking to their own powers to keep themselves in the straight way of the Lord, it was perfectly acceptable for them to continue in all the ordinances of the law, just as Daniel and the faithful exiles had done, even in the absence of the temple. But to enjoin this upon gentiles would be a serious regression. It would be to undo all that had come about to release even Jewish believers from the yoke of an unattainable standard. But especially in the case of the gentiles, to put on them the yoke of the law would be especially reversionistic, because the law was never given to them in the first place. It was only given to Israel. (see below note).

I labor this point, because I see no discrepancy with a dispensational responsibility or stewardship towards the law, as with Israel before the cross, and Israel again in the millennium, and the many who, though under the law as a stewardship, were never “under” the law as a means of life or justification. Though under the law as a stewardship of responsibility, David , even as David, though ‘under the law’ was not ‘under the law’ as to righteousness (Paul’s point in Ro 4). Jews in the millennium are a perfect example of the principle I am pointing out. They will be gladly and gratefully engaged to fulfill distinctive commandments and ordinances intended for them in particular (a different dispensation of responsibility / stewardship from millennial gentile believers). Yet, they will be perfectly secure in their assurance of righteousness by faith and the preserving power of the Spirit through to the end of the millennial without apostasy or defection from a perfectly secure, eternal covenant.

Keeping the law as a stewardship is one thing. Keeping it as a means of life is quite another. Hope this gives some food for thought. It’s quite hurried and inadequate, of course. After all, the question of the law is perhaps the most involved and difficult of all questions. I believe Paul is a monergist who will permit nothing of man to contribute to his own salvation, nor anything of human righteousness to mix or enter upon a divine righteousness that is wholly other. This is the ground of his “apparent” vehemence and negativity towards law keeping. It is his war on humanism, and the tendency of man, unable to conceive of such an absolute sovereignty, to mix the un-mixable. Ro 11:6

(As an aside, we should note that although God did not give gentiles the law directly; He gave them Israel. Through them, the nations would have reinforced the moral sense in every person’s conscience. I may be alone in this, but I believe Paul is saying in Ro 2 that there were gentiles, even before the cross, that were regenerate and thus fulfilled the law in real measure. This was in contrast to Jews who had the law but did not fulfill it, being un-regenerate. (It is theologically preposterous to suppose that the OT believers, Jew or gentile, could be regenerate apart from the indwelling of the Spirit. What came at Pentecost was a unique fullness, and great advance in both understanding and power, but this is NOT the first time that believers had life and union with God by the Spirit). Also, when thinking about the law in relation to faith, it is well to keep in mind that for Paul, the issue of faith is never conceived apart from the work of the Holy Spirit to produce and maintain true faith. For Paul, as for John in 1Jn 5:4, the only faith that counts is a faith that is born of God, not mere belief, even ‘correct’ belief. That is why Paul can so closely associate the issue of faith with the issue of the Spirit, without implying thereby something that man is producing out of himself.

The post More Thoughts on the Law appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Some Thoughts on “Keeping the Law” or “Torah Observance”

Certainly for Paul, keeping the commandments in a true and living way was the equivalent of a new creation (in the sense of its sure and necessary evidence). This is clearly seen when 1 Cor 7:19 and Gal 6:15 are compared in juxtaposition. But the ‘keeping of the commandments’ is never the cause, but the sure and certain ‘result’ of “a new creation” (defined as vital regeneration, the resurrection life of Christ in every living believer). To ‘get the cart before the horse’ in this matter constitutes ‘another gospel.’

However, Paul just as clearly declared himself (not only gentiles as in Acts 15:10-29) ‘free’ (except for expedience sake) from certain regulations of the law (1Cor 6:12; 1Cor 9:19-21). In some instances, however, these ‘regulations’ were not merely rabbinic custom but divine commandment. How can this be? Since Paul never releases even gentile believers from the keeping of the essential commandments of God (far from it!), what has changed? Why is anyone at any time released from circumcision or any other commandment of the law?

Though not stated so explicitly (or where would be the controversy, and hence the divinely intended crisis?), there is a certain ‘kind’ of commandment that the apostle calls ‘carnal’ Heb 7:16 and 9:10). Which commandments come under this designation?

The evidence suggests to me that such a distinction has in view those particular commandments given specifically to Israel that are ‘physical’ and outward, the performance of which lies within the reach of the natural man, and do not require for their fulfillment the miracle of regeneration. It is not so with the perfect holiness required by the law. By divine intent, this requirement is necessarily beyond natural ability, and possible only to God through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, “the power of an endless (or indestructible) life.” It is these physical ordinances in particular that formed part of Israel’s unique stewardship “under the law” that stood between Jew and gentile. But now, since “the time of reformation” Heb 9:10), these particular kinds of commandments are no longer permitted to divide between members of the eschatological ‘one new man.’ God is jealous that this issue of divine contention not be compromised by well meaning believers as did Peter in the episode that Paul records in Gal 2:11.

Paul is clear that to rest in any form of “works” (anything possible to man) for justification is ultimately fatal, but what of the question of observing such humanly doable ordinances strictly for the sake of witness or a presumed ‘higher sanctification’? In my view, this is to surrender something that is critical to the heart of the divine purpose for this dispensation. It misses entirely God’s very point in removing the temple and sacrifice and in giving the Spirit to gentiles “in order to provoke” the ‘observant’ Jew to jealousy [Paul argues that such fastidious ‘observance’ apart from the Spirit falls fatally short of true “commandment keeping”].

It is to miss entirely the very cause and nature of the believer’s distinctive stewardship ( calling / trust / responsibility ) ordained for this present time while the Jew is under the particular form of judgment decreed for this dispensation. To return ‘at this time’ to these particular kinds of ‘dispensationally conditioned’ ordinances is to give back the very ground that Paul rebukes Peter for yielding to the men that came from James (Gal 2:12-18). It is to build again what was destroyed (I ask, what was “destroyed”?), and makes the one returning to the old (something is “old”) standard of division a transgressor. Furthermore, it removes from God the very leverage of appeal that is intended to demonstrate to the Jew that “righteousness does not come by the law” (Gal 2:21; 3:11; Heb 10:8) which in Pauline usage means that perverse “confidence in the flesh” that imagines that the holiness of the law can be approached by man as man. Regardless of time or dispensation, the law is fulfilled only by the power of the Spirit, perfectly and flawlessly in Christ, but substantially and visibly in every ‘living’ believer.

Many of the laws first given at Mt. Sinai are provisional for a theocratic nation ‘in the land’. They are not eternal. Abraham was no less a commandment-keeping man of the Spirit, as are all his true born progeny (see John 8:39), yet he knew nothing of many of the laws first instituted at Mt. Sinai. These were distinctive and restrictive in their intention for the new theocratic nation. However, the righteousness embodied, articulated and required in that distinctive covenant is indeed eternal. The law requires nothing less than the perfect righteousness of God Himself and cuts off all else. This righteousness perfectly fulfilled only in Messiah’s flawless humanity (Lev 18:5; Mt 3:15; Gal 3:12), is in substantial measure fulfilled also in the believer by nothing less than a comparable incarnation of the Spirit (new creation) mediated through a regenerating miracle of divine revelation that issues in true repentance and saving faith. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, and is fundamentally axiomatic for any time or dispensation (the new birth is not peculiar to the New Testament “Are you a master in Israel …?”).

So the law instituted with the Sinaitic covenant is a divine trust given uniquely to the priestly nation, but it also functions as a test and witness to the reality of that nation’s true heart condition, i.e. its fidelity to God; it was a provisional stewardship for Israel in particular, conditioned in some respects on endurance in the Land, and never intended to reach beyond its purpose to bring in a new creation of completed perfection; it was therefore in that sense regarded by the apostles as a temporary dispensation (Heb 9:10). This is in no way contradicted by the recognition that certain elements belonging to that earlier dispensation will again be in force in the coming millennium when the kingdom is restored to Israel. But according to the mystery hid in other ages, the Church of this dispensation is revealed as the eschatological first-fruits, not only of Israel’s millennial salvation, but of something even more ultimate than millennial Israel, namely, the “one new man” of the new creation, the heavenly Zion, the completed assembly, the final tabernacle of God (Gal 4:26; Heb 12:22; 11:40; Rev 21:3). Thus, the mystery of the Body of Messiah reveals the Church in its essential nature as a kind of ‘eighth day’ phenomenon. In its invisible essence, the Church is the present realization of that new creation that is beyond even the millennial dispensation. This is not only the destiny, but the now present heavenly position of every true born child of God. Our citizenship is in heaven. And though no less true of all of the ‘living’ from every age (Mt 12:26-27), this, as so much else, has only come to full light through the revelation of gospel.

Though often confused and improperly differentiated, these important distinctions take absolutely nothing away from the unique role and special stewardship that Israel MUST fulfill throughout the millennium for the sake of ‘that’ necessary and public vindication of covenant faithfulness on God’s part (“This is my covenant with them…”). Rather, it is only to distinguish that the stewardship and calling of the Church of this age is unique to this age, though this is not the last age. The Church is a mystery organism, a phenomenon of divine revelation set ‘between the times’ as a witness to “the powers of the age to come.” Although the “powers” of the coming age have come in unexpected advance of the salvation of the ‘last day’ (Old Testament ‘Day of the Lord’) in the person and work of the Messiah and in the Spirit poured out upon the Church, the age itself is still future.

During this present age and dispensation (the time that Israel is under temporary divine hardening), the Church is to show forth the life, power, and freedom of that new order of existence “apart from the works of the law.” At the same time, through the eschatological gift of the Spirit, the believer (most remarkably the ‘gentile’ believer, Col 1:27) is able now to fulfill in real measure the very righteousness required by the law, which is nothing less than the righteousness of God Himself. The Church (when it is the Church) should be distinguished by those miraculous and inimitable fruits of the Spirit “against which there is no law,” and thus move Israel to jealousy, NOT because it is observant of those outward ordinances that are possible to unaided human performance, but because it manifests the power of the promise of the new age by the gift of faith in Christ’s imputed righteousness to the glory of God alone, and ALL most purposefully and emphatically “apart from the law!” (Ro 3:21). This is God’s method of removing all ground of boasting. This is the very point of divine contention. Shall we surrender it?

In my view, it is not only inconsistent, but a serious defection for the gentile believer to take on the yoke of Sabbaths, feasts and other physical ordinances of like kind, and thus remove from God the very thing that He has appointed to make His case against Israel’s greatest historic tendency and fatal presumption (Ro 9:32), namely, the lie of humanism, the presumption that in man is anything good. It is only as the Church comes into its appointed eschatological fullness that Israel will be made jealous. Israel will NOT be made jealous by an accommodating zeal for sanctification through Sabbatarian and kosher observance. On the contrary, such a presumption, though perhaps unconsciously, reveals the same inherent humanism that only retards the Church’s calling and hinders the fullness that Israel and the end of the age waits. It is by divine design that the Holy Spirit promised to the surviving remnant of Israel at the Day of the Lord should now be seen resting upon unqualified non-observant non-kosher gentiles! This is God’s very point; it is His contention with Israel. We must draw the line where an inspired and inerrant New Testament has drawn it. The offense must continue; it is divinely intended. Israel will come forth from its grave because God insists on being known as “the God that raises the dead,” not because we made them jealous through kosher observance or any other “carnal ordinance” (apostolically so-called; Heb 9:10). There is a place where the believer is obliged to not ‘give place … no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal 2:5). This is where Paul who could otherwise “become all things to all men” was obliged to draw the line.

I am aware that there is much more to this issue that requires consideration, but these few points are offered as a safeguard against the mounting threat of a Judaizing spirit that still stalks the church, though not always in its original Jewish form. I believe we can expect to see this crisis escalate with an unequaled subtlety towards the end. There is good reason to expect that the church’s greatest test will not be the Antichrist, but a deception of a more subtle kind, so that “if it were possible, they (the false anointed ones) shall deceive the very elect.” Signs and wonders are not fatal except as they lend support to a lie, and I believe it will be the lie of works righteousness. Licentious antinomianism is not subtle enough to threaten the very elect. However, works righteousness is subtle beyond imagination, as it only takes the least amount of that leaven to spoil the whole.

In trembling contention for the non-negotiable offense of the gospel,

Reggie

The post Some Thoughts on “Keeping the Law” – [VIDEO] appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Hi Reggie, Please help me understand these passages…
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (Rev 2:9)
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. (Rev 3:9)
Thank you, and, of course, I hope all is well.

I believe the Lord is speaking to a situation that existed in the early church and now threatens to surface again. In another sense, it has always persisted, even apart from the issue of Jewish identity, since the essence of this sin is present wherever one can claim the high ground over other believers based on something ‘in’, ‘of’, or ‘from’ man, i.e., works religion, which is essentially spiritual Babylon in all its forms and kinds. This is simply the Jewish kind.

The essence of this pernicious tendency is present whenever something in the power of the flesh is trusted in to give a spiritual advantage. We can see from Paul’s epistles that even Jews were concerned to distinguish a ‘true Jew’ from one that was merely Jewish through natural descent. The Jews, no less than Paul, were concerned to distinguish between outward and inward. That is not the question. The question then as now is: “On what grounds?” The most observant Jews looked upon their less religious kinsmen as moving towards the great apostasy, believing themselves the true remnant based on their careful observance of the law.

They saw the new heart of Jeremiah and Ezekiel as a promise of a future inner transformation that would turn Jewish hearts back to the law as necessary for salvation, since obedience to the law proves and gives evidence of a true heart turning back to God. In that sense, nothing has changed. This is the answer you will find from many orthodox Jews familiar with the prophets. So it was a great goal to be pious enough to qualify as a “true Jew,” i.e., a Jew that would pass the test of divine judgment, since, as with Islam and all other works based ‘faiths’, there is no final assurance of salvation in Judaism. At best, there is only a shaky hope based on how much comfort could be taken by religious comparisons with others (Lk 11:18). It is a deeply evil propensity of the flesh, even when it is not particularly Jewish.

For Paul, Jewish heritage mattered (Ro 3:2), provided it accomplished its divine goal of witnessing to the true truth of the true God (Mt 23:28; Ro 2:28) and moving the gentile to jealousy, so to speak. However, where the Spirit of regeneration (circumcision of the heart) is not present, all else counts for nothing (Gal 6:15). In fact, Jesus, Paul, and the entire NT is clear that where the new birth (vital union with the Spirit is absent, even the most ardent and sincere zeal becomes a study in tragedy. It is this tragedy for which Paul felt the greatest sense of pathos, as should we (Ro 9:3; 10:1-3). Not simply because souls are lost; that is tragic enough. But all the more because the nation that has been blinded is not just any other nation, but the nation and people of divine choice and love (Amos 3:2) with whom God has bound His name, His covenant, and the glory of His return. We need to see what Paul saw. This has cost God; He cannot just ‘leave it there’. God forbid! His covenant and His name are at stake. Regardless of how great a good has come through their fall, He has determined that His own name and covenant reputation is at stake in their penitent return and He will get it done!

Now who exactly is Jesus addressing here in these passages? I’m not sure, but it could be either of three possible kinds of claims to Jewish identity, or some combination of them. First, there is the reprehensible but less fatal error of expecting that native Jewish identity and heritage gives the natural born Jew special covenant rights and favor over other gentile brethren. This is in manifest contradiction to the “mystery” that Paul proclaimed among the gentiles. (This propensity is currently making a come back).

However, it appears that the Lord is here denouncing something that is much more pernicious. All error is costly but not all error is fatal; this is fatal. It is more than pride of ethnic identity. It is the really Satanic presupposition that there is something good in man (Mt 19:17; Ro 7:18). It is the principle of all works religion that looks for something in the power of the creature on which it can base its hope of salvation or even a prideful distinction above others that permits judgment of others (Lk18:9; 1Cor 4:7). It is simply trust in the flesh. So the “Synagogue of Satan,” is, in one form or another, really just “the church of pride.”

It is easy enough to suppose that all that is intended here is the ‘parting of the ways’ between Christians and Jews over the question of Jesus, but there was also the powerful tendency in the early church, even for gentile converts, to emulate Jewish identity and covenant heritage to the point of coming back under what Paul called the “beggarly elements”. In Paul’s view this put gentile believer back under the curse.

[Side note: In the view of many scholars, this term translated “beggarly elements” in the ASV, is the Greek word, “stoichia” (Gal 4:3, 9; Col 2:8, 20). It is the term for the ‘elementary principles’, or ‘elemental things’ of the world. It was common to associate coming back under these elemental things with coming under the powers that preside and rule over that part of the creation that has come under the power of Satan, so that those that trust in nature or natural ability, are actually putting themselves under the power of demons.]

Many gentile believers in the early church were putting themselves under the norms and requirements of pre-Christian Judaism in hopes of becoming Jews (“true Jews”) in the sense of full covenant privilege. The hope of advantage through observance of the law is one thing. It can have its own ‘slippery slope’ of self sanctification and superiority over others who believe. But here, it appears that something much more fatal is at work. Whether actual Jews by both religion and ethnicity or those desiring to become Jews, it seems that these who were claiming the high ground were in actual contempt of these whom Jesus loved, as though he did not love them. This suggests to me that this was a Christian sect within the early church that exalted their identity as Jews, whether that was ethnic or through legal conformity to Jewish custom and regulation, regarded as still binding for believers. In any event, the ‘Synagogue of Satan’ saw themselves as ‘in’ and all others as ‘out’. They supposed that they alone qualified for the Lord’s love in the sense of election, while discounting that Jesus could love these who were so manifestly disqualified to be counted among His elect. Where have we seen this tendency in the church?

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie Kelly

The post The Synagogue of Satan and The Church of Pride appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Brother, I still can’t locate anything you sent on tithing so if you have an opportunity and locate it, please send again. I apologize but really would like to see what the Lord has revealed to you regarding tithing.

Dear sister and friend, I will be looking for that piece. I’m sure I’ll find it shortly, but I can summarize my view in a few words. The specific law of tithing given to Israel as a binding ordinance is quite different from the freedom of new covenant giving. I see little difference in principle between coming under a legal necessity or ecclesiastical demand to tithe than to submit to circumcision in order to accommodate the party of the concision as Paul called it. To this disposition of spirit, Paul was determined not to give place, no not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue. The law was a tutor to bring us to Christ. If it hasn’t yet brought us to the freedom of daughters and sons, it hasn’t done its job. However, a tutor that has done its job can retire. In fact, we are said to be dead to the law and married to another. It’s easy to see what Paul says about circumcision and imagine that we are square with the issue, but then we turn around and do the very same thing (in principle) with baptism, the sacraments, or tithing etc. When we get the cart before the horse, all is spoiled. When leaven is introduced, even a little, all is spoiled. The gospel will not bear mixture (Gal 5:2-4). Grace and works will not mix (Ro 11:6); simply because flesh and Spirit will not mix. If someone can honestly tell me that the Spirit is leading them to tithe, they better obey. I would also wonder if the law has accomplished its goal if someone claiming to be in Christ is not constrained by the love of God to freely give out of their abundance and even their want. But if such giving is being done under the constraints of a yet legal, and therefore, yet troubled conscience, then I am in doubt of their freedom to say the least. We must, however, be patient and not strive. We are dealing with mystery, because the gospel, though once and for all revealed, is yet a mystery to the flesh and must yet be revealed to many. We wait for them in patience of love and forbearance.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

On Jan 1, from Australia.
I’m glad you sent me this. I”m dealing with an issue at the moment so it was a very timely. I do have one question though, it relates to honoring the Lord with the firstfruits, though not a law it can be considered a biblical principle to embrace, especially when it is born out of love, worship and honor. If acceptable what is that amount, would not a tenth be a good place to start?

Jan 12, 2008
Hi, Sorry bout being so tardy in my response. I’ve been on a car trip across part of the country and haven’t had much time with email. I will send that article. I hesitate to send anything I’ve not looked at more closely, as I’ve not gotten to it yet, but I’ll go ahead and forward that, and you can judge of its value.

As to ‘first-fruits’, that is always how I have referred to our family’s approach to giving. The law was given as an index to manifest and expose as well as to guide. It was to educate and prepare. Before first-fruits or the tithe ever became part of the law, both existed first as a free and unconstrained response to grace received. It seems apparent that that Jacob was conscious of the principle and precedent shown in Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek. So Jacob’s desire to set apart a portion wasn’t entirely original. Still, in all instances, it was nothing required or constrained. The tithe, on the other hand, was not a free choice. That is why if the purpose and temporariness of the law is misconceived, things like the tithe can be so easily manipulated by well meaning, and some not so well meaning, church authorities.

So yes, the principle of first-fruits seems a universal and trans-dispensational principal that can serve as a statement of gratitude, love, and honor. You suggest: “Might not a tenth be a place to start? Well, I think the best rule is each person’s sense of the leading of the Spirit in all of our approach to giving; that’s what pleases the Lord (Heb 11:6). The law was given to shut us up to faith, but when faith is come, the personal leading of the Spirit takes up where the law left off; the tutor can retire.

With the greater light comes the greater freedom. God can trust His divine nature in His people to abound in giving without necessity or external constraint. One reason the dispensation of the law is to be so carefully contrasted with the grace and truth that has come by Christ (Jn 1:17) is the circumstance that the legal covenant assumes. Except for a comparatively small remnant, the larger part of the nation would not be regenerate until the promised ‘day of the Lord’ when the entirety of the nation would come under the New Covenant at once (Isa 66:8; Ezek 39:22). Until then, there was the necessity of civil enforcement of the law’s requirements in Israel for the sake of order and social continuity as a theocracy. The change towards the law that is assumed by the newly revealed (not newly existent) phenomenon of the Spirit’s indwelling of the corporate body of Christ is made apparent by such passages as Mk 10:5; 1Tim 1:9; Act 15:10.

Sincerely yours in Christ, Reggie

Jan 12, 2008
Mr. Kelly,
I have just a quick question regarding the conversations regarding the tithe. Though the answer may well be as you often suggest, the “leading of the Spirit.” What I am wondering is to whom should the money be given? For example, most Churches that I have been insist that ten percent be given to the local body. Which is to say there respective Church. Also that any additional giving to say missionaries, people within the Church that need money, the poor, whomever that that is outside the tithe and does not count towards the ten percent law of tithe. It seems to me that all to often that the greater the giver the more prestige and respect within the upper echelon of the Church. That so and so is a great Christian because he gives. Which seems to create division.

Also what do you think about keeping track of people’s giving throughout the year for tax break reasons? I think that is not right, is that not letting your right hand know what your left hand is doing. I mean rich worldy people give simply for tax advantages?

I only ask because my wife and I simply set aside money and take the issue of where it should go, to the Lord. Be it to someone struggling to pay for their bills, or food (within the Body), to missionaries, or to the Pastor or whomever. Whatever it is we try to make it anynomous. I am just curious as to what your thought is behind these other issues surrounding the tithe and it being led by the Spirit or other?

When the gift will bring a precious edification in the inner man, this is confirmation that it has been given by the leading of the Spirit. There is a sweet smell where the sacrifice is true. He rewards the works, gifts, or sacrifices He inspires and those only.

Reggie

The post Thoughts on the Law of the Tithe appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Dearly esteemed Brother Reggie!

I am a christian of gentile origin but I am deeply into the jewish way of thinking and I would dare to call myself a hebrew christian. Salvation and the gift of righteousness through faith is a precious gift which I embrace with vigour and zeal. Still I have a deep reverence for celebrating the sabbath on saturdays…not in a legalistic way but in the way of freedom and love for God. This day was indeed sanctified at the creation of the world and the law was given much later. How would you think I can honour this day without falling into that which Paul warned the galatians about. Could you plese bestow some of your wisdom and give me some instructions how to celebrate without going wrong here.

Truly yours in Messiah Yehoshua

It seems to me, that as long as you make the distinction that you so passionately express here, there’s little risk that your love of the Sabbath would ever spill over into some of the errors that are beginning again to plague the church.

Contrary to some suspiciously labored qualifications by some teachers, Paul makes this a matter of liberty and personal conscience, not to be judged by another. So you are free to use your Shabbat blessing as you choose, as a sweet offering to the Lord, and as refreshment to your soul, your family, and as many as are inclined to observe with you. It is unto the Lord that you regard the day; and He is honored by what’s in your heart. After all, the day was not made for its own sake, but for you. However, mark well that IF we were still under the law as a binding administration, this would not be so. It would then be a very particular matter indeed, and no part of all the appurtenances of Sabbath observance could be left undone without spoiling the whole.

Also, If I am correct to understand that the literal interpretation of scripture receive first priority, I see that the regathered Jews will be observing a somewhat modified Sabbath in the Land during the millennium, and that the nations will be obliged to honor the feast of tabernacles. This is clearly not required now, but will be then. At that time, the mystery of the gospel is no longer hidden from the entirety of the nation (Isa 8:14-17; 25:7; Ezek 39:22; Zech 12:10), since at that time, all will know Him, and so never again have occasion to evangelize a Jewish neighbor (Jer 31:34 et al.). I mention this because a return to certain elements of the law will then be safe from confusion among the Jews, because the unique test and demonstration designed for this current dispensation will have accomplished its purpose. For this reason, certain elements of the law are clearly not imposed, not even enjoined, upon the Gentile believers of this age only. The millennium will have its own distinctive requirements, stewardship, tests.

Such provisional ‘loosing’ of certain requirements of the law as evident in many scriptures can only be accounted for by a special divine intention unique to this time. Here’s where interpretations differ; but it seems undeniable that some kind of divine statement is being made to Israel, such as how the Spirit is received by faith alone, and this by non-observant Gentiles. Unthinkable! Exactly! The supreme stumbling block, and it was so intended.

As I’ve suggested elsewhere, the unique stewardship, or the test for the church of this time, is different for the sake of the testimony suited to this time, particularly as it pertains to the ‘mystery’ of the gospel. Though once and for all revealed, the gospel remains a mystery for the Jew where Christ is not acknowledged as ‘the LORD our righteousness’, as the only ground of an eternal justification. What then is included in such a divine statement that would justify what the writer of Hebrews calls “a change in the law?” What a radical challenge to Israel that Gentiles should be released from the law. What’s God’s point? The relationship of the covenants and the issue of continuity and discontinuity between the testaments is one of the most nuanced and difficult subjects in all of theology, particularly if you happen to be committed to a literal and therefore millennial view of prophecy.

Although there is a very clear ‘loosing’, or relaxation of the outward ordinances (called ‘carnal ordinances’ in Heb 7:16; 9:10, in manifest distinction to the law in the heart). Still, Paul is just as clear that there is freedom of conscience in this matter, so long as it doesn’t result in judgment of another brother’s liberty. Would to God we could recover the generous spirit of this apostolic balance. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.” But that doesn’t mean liberty from stewardship, and certainly not from obedience, whether in the OT, now, or in the millennium to come. But rather the liberty to be ‘led of the Spirit’ and so fulfill the law of Christ. Therefore, if a brother or sister is so ‘led’ to observe Sabbath, whether the weekly, the eternal, or both in the true spirit of the ordinance, and not the mere form of the letter, then what believer would not rejoice?

I do not believe that the Sabbath can be regarded as ‘mandatory’ simply because it predates the law. The covenant of circumcision also predates the law (“not because it is of Moses, but of the Fathers”).

It is typically argued by Seventh Day Adventists that the Sabbath is exceptional to circumcision and other aspects of the outward ordinances of the law on the ground that it is a ‘creation ordinance’. By making a case for the pre-Sinaitic existence of the other ten commandments, it is held that the Sabbath should be regarded as just as binding for all time. The reasoning goes: If Sabbath observance pre-existed the law as an ‘everlasting’ ordinance, we might reasonably infer that it should be no less ‘required’ than any other of the ‘big ten’. As an ‘everlasting’ ordinance, the Sabbath transcends the more temporal imposition of circumcision and other features of the Sinaitic institutions. (Note, however, that circumcision was also called an ‘everlasting’ covenant; Gen 17:13).

The argument runs: If all other aspects of the moral law remain in force in the NT, shouldn’t the Sabbath also retain its eternal status as also defining and declaring something about the moral character of God? Never are any of the other commandments considered optional or a matter of liberty or personal conscience. Why, then, shouldn’t the Sabbath be just as mandatory? However, according to certain, albeit disputed, NT passages, Sabbath observance, unlike all other inward moral commandments, is no longer “required” in the sense of a punishable moral obligation, else Paul could not speak of the Sabbath in the liberal way he does. The other moral commandments of God are certainly NOT treated as optional, NOT a matter of liberty. So what has changed? And why should this be so? Particularly since regenerate Israel is shown in some clearly post-day of the Lord (millennial) passages as celebrating certain feasts and features of the law’s ancient institutions in the Land during the millennium? Of course, this is only a problem for us so-called ‘literalists’.

I think that part of the answer is that in this dispensation the stress is placed on the Spirit, and the coming in of the eternal realm of the new creation (the so-called ‘age to come’). So in order to enforce the divine testimony that the outward forms have now realized their prefiguring goal and fulfillment in Christ, the outward is removed (‘loosed’) only to demonstrate that the inward and eternal has come as everlasting fulfillment. The eternal life of the resurrection is demonstrated, not by outward diet or ritual, or observance of a particular feast or day, but by the signs of the Spirit, as beyond mere natural human ‘do-ability’. Thus, the true goal of the law is fulfilled by Christ in the believer in things that are incapable of fulfillment apart from the power of His life, proof of incarnation. This kind of commandment fulfillment is beyond human reach, and less capable of confusing the chasm that exists between nature and grace. To underscore this new centrality of the now revealed secret, some of the outward forms are temporarily (or permanently, depending on your view of the millennium) suspended in order to stress the issue of the Spirit through Christ. This puts the Jew on the spot as nothing else, but only if the Christian is not provoking him to jealousy by demonstrating the evidence of the Spirit’s power, otherwise, it is the supreme stumbling block, and serves rather to support him in his unbelief. It would almost seem as if God doesn’t play ‘fair’, putting the burden of proof on the church, and making Israel’s destiny to be bound up with what is manifest only “through the church.”

Sorry if I strayed from the topic a bit; but your question provoked some of my own reflections and questions, as there are still outstanding issues in this whole area about which I remain tentative. But this is my general view as it now stands.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

Response from a reader on Oct 27, 2007:

I really appreciated your article on the Sabbath. It is beautifully put and strikes chords that are stirring in my own heart. I am curious about a sentence in the next to last paragraph. Did you really mean “not” provoking? If you did would you elaborate?

I meant ‘not’ provoking. Because when we ‘fail’ to demonstrate the compelling evidence of the Spirit’s power, the Jew is all the more reinforced in his view that believers are ‘illegitimately’ liberated from the Law by those nefarious Jewish apostates, Jesus and Paul. We believe on the other hand that we are legitimately liberated from the law, not because the Word of God has changed, but because through Christ, we are the walking fulfillment of the law as new creations, showing the law’s goal through love shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and in order that the issue not be blurred but pressed home, there is the actual ‘loosing’ of New Covenant believers from some of the old forms.

When the Jew sees the power of the Spirit in undeniable manifestation, this gives serious pause to the boldness of their rejection. When they see the signs of the Spirit performed in Jesus’ name, it sends shock waves through all of their categories. That said, however, I believe that the truest and fullest witness to the Jew takes even more than the manifestation of the miraculous; and it should! I say this because I’ve heard many of the ultra orthodox dismiss Jesus’ miracles on the basis of Deut 13:1-10. Jesus was a self-deceived false prophet with the power of sorcery, actually raised up by God to test the hearts of the righteous remnant concerning their devotion to the law. If you read that passage, you’ll see that this is also likely the text in mind that justified the stoning of Stephen. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, ‘this generation’, the generation that killed the prophets, has by no means passed away. All that is lacking is political power to manifest again this kind of house cleaning. This is where the miracle of Christian love for the enemy (albeit beloved enemy) shines through the most brightly, as in Jesus’ words from the cross, in Stephen’s impassioned plea, and Paul’s will to absorb their curse in himself. That’s the love that has redeemed you and me; may it shine in us towards Israel, as it shines towards our detractors who are actually servants to our calling to test and mature this kind of love in us, the inimitable love of the Father.

Appreciatively, in His precious service, Reggie

The post Observing the Sabbath appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Dear Reggie,

I was reading through Galatians 2 recently, and I noticed how Titus refused to be circumcised so as to appease the party of the circumcision (to Paul’s approval). Yet in 1 Corinthians 8 Paul embraces a being all things to all people philosophy. So, my question is to what degree as Christians are we to embrace such a philosophy in regard to matters of the law?

In my own context, I attend a church where the vast majority (if not all) members believe in and practice tithing. Yet it is my understanding that since the tithe was part of the entire sacrificial system (whether pre-law or not), that we as Christians today are not obligated to tithe. However, since I love my brethren, and desire to minister to them, to the best of my ability, I attempt to tithe. For I know that if I did not tithe, and such was known to them, such would be a stumbling block to them, and most of them would have nothing to do with me or my ministry.

But in light of Galatians 2, I have wondered if my approach has been proper? Would I be better off not tithing, so as to display that far from the heavens being shut, and the earth being as brass, that the blessing of the Spirit rests upon me in spite of such?

God bless,

You have a very important question there.

Before coming to the question of tithing and the problem of legalism within the church, it is good to look at the word “obligation.” Obligation is not opposed to grace. During the millennium, the nation that fails to send a delegation to Jerusalem to keep the feast of tabernacles will receive no rain (Zech 14). Now that’s obligation! But responsibility has nothing to do with justification, which is a resurrection event of new creation, unconstrained by anything in man or of man. Therefore, grace is never the absence of responsibility, but rather the power to fulfill ‘all righteousness’ by a newness of spirit that works by love. This, since nothing counts except what issues out of a new creation (Gal 6:15).

Thus, Paul’s vehemence against the law is essentially directed not against the law, but against the evil presumption that anything within the natural power of man (even the best will and resolve of religious man) could procure righteousness or contribute anything towards justification. That common presumption is always and under all circumstances and dispensations, WORKS. For this cause, Paul said “to whom we gave place, no, not so much as an hour SO THAT the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” Pretty serious stuff. So serious that Paul says to Peter, “if I build again the things that I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” Again, pretty serious implications.

But there’s an important difference between this and tithing. Typically, the evangelical is not looking to tithing for his justification, although he cannot imagine sanctification without it. It seems a small thing indeed, but once that ground has been given, it becomes quite arbitrary where the line is to be drawn. Not that a believer is trusting in himself to obtain righteousness by his commitment to giving, but when giving becomes the law of the tithe, it misses entirely the point of NT testimony of the spirit of liberty, which says giving is to be ‘without constraint’. Why without constraint? What is at stake? We mustn’t lightly yield the principle here. Why would the law of the tithe not be obligatory during this dispensation?

Indeed, the sad absence of a freedom to give and sacrifice liberally does not give evidence of the new spirit of Christian liberty, but rather hints at some kind of bondage or blockage, but this isn’t remedied by a legal return to the law of the tithe, which in principle opens the door to turning what should have been a free and unconstrained delight into a moral obligation, that if not mandatory for justification, is certainly required for blessing.

And certainly there is a blessing to the giver, and there is a godly desire to separate to the Lord a first-fruits (not as “necessity,” but as a representative token that really “all” has been given over to God). But this assumes that such giving is without a servile necessity that is “under” the law, since this would convert what should have been a delight into a mandatory obligation. Hence, something important is lost of the divine intention for this dispensation when, for example, our Presbyterian brethren make Sunday the new Christian Sabbath. By so doing, they actually embrace in principle (a divinely imposed obligation based on the perpetuity of the ten commandments) the very error that gives the Sabbatarians the strength of their argument, not for justification, of course, but as an evidence of justification. Still, even when not for life, but as evidence of new life, such obligation to the law is not God’s intention for this dispensation, which is to show His prerogative to give the promised Spirit “apart from the law,” on the basis of a living faith, even to unqualified Gentiles. And the evidence of the NT does not lead me to conclude that such Gentiles began immediately to observe the law as proof of their salvation.

So responsibility, even ‘obligation’ is not the problem in any period or dispensation, but progressive revelation necessarily brings dispensational changes suited to the purpose of that time, and there is thus a new responsibility peculiar to that particular divine trust. The test is our response to that revelation.

So, I believe to return to the law of the tithe is a slippery slope to the return to the whole law, if not for justification, for the perfecting of the Christian life. But having begun in the Spirit, we cannot hope to be perfected by laws and ordinances, not even the big ten. “For had there been ‘a’ (any) law that could have given life ….” It is a matter of dispensational propriety, because even if such ordinances were obligatory for this time, that would not in itself militate against Christian freedom. On the contrary, grace in the heart would lead the Christian to delight in those things, if that were indeed the stewardship/ requirement of this time. But as I have discussed elsewhere, God has a statement that He is making through Gentiles in this time and dispensation. When that statement is complete, I believe there will be a return to certain legal obligations in the millennium as a testimony, and the regenerate nation of the Jews will delight in responsibilities some old and some new, also as a testimony. My only point is that these are not the testimony, not the test, of this dispensation.

The question now is what is God’s intention for this time, and our responsibility to the changes that have been instituted for this time, in manifest contrast to the older dispensation. That is a real point of difference that I take with the Sabbatarians, who must impute to the ten commandments a higher sanctity than the other laws of equal perpetuity, such as circumcision for example.

But apart from all these considerations, tithing is in a category all its own. It is an emotional issue, because just in the nature of things, tithing is good business. It uses guilt (not consciously, of course) to control Christians that are not free, and that would not otherwise give. It’s smart; it’s rational; it’s natural; it works.

As to your decision, I can’t think of too many things more unsavory than having the joy and freedom of my giving to be monitored. There’s a point when accommodating someones scruples can become its own bondage, and actually is a kind of indulgence that encourages an immaturity that genders to bondage in many other areas as well. When Paul became all things, I don’t think he was talking about putting up indefinitely with a believer’s divisive errors of heart or doctrine, but rather for the sake of evangelism among the cultures there was a measure of accommodation. What is needed is sound teaching on the issue of grace and law and the dispensations. But because of the sense of threat to settled and reliable views and their safe and assured results, you can expect that such teaching will expose the teacher to the greater danger of rejection and loss. That itself should tell you something about the vested interests of the intimidating principalities over issues like this.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

The post Matters of the Law: From Circumcision to Tithing appeared first on Mystery of Israel.