Quick Review of Part 1

 

1. Our focus passage was Romans 4:11-15 with particular emphasis on verse 15: For Torah brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression [of the law]. Unfortunately, denominationalists erroneously use this and related Pauline passages as their anti-Torah proof passages.

 

2. We highlighted the denominationalists’ erroneous claims that no one is capable of keeping or walking out Torah blamelessly—what the rabbis have enumerated as 613 Torah Commandments (correction from last installment)–that is, one not being prone to violating Yah’s commandments, especially in contrast to those outside of our faith and the wicked of this world–despite biblical statements to the contrary. All the while no one doubts he or she can be a law-abiding U.S. citizen without transgressing any of the 100’s of 100,000’s of federal, state, and municipal laws on the books of this nation.

 

Of Zechariah and Elisheva—Yochanan the Immerser’s parents–Luke wrote:

 

They were both righteous in the sight of Yah, following all the commandments and ordinances of Yah blamelessly (Luke 1:6).

 

And excuse my oversight in not mentioning this key passage in that installment, but Father Yah Himself asserted that we can indeed keep Torah blamelessly:

 

(11) This commandment I am giving you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it too remote. (12) It is not in heaven, as though one must say, “Who will go up to heaven to get it for us and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?”(13) And it is not across the sea, as though one must say, “Who will cross over to the other side of the sea and get it for us and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” (14) For the thing is very near you—it is in your mouth and in your mind so that you can do it (Deu. 30:11-14; NET). 

 

The Yerushalayim Targum (an ancient commentary of the Hebrew Scriptures) expresses in particular verse 14 as:

 

For the word is very nigh you, in your mouth, that you may meditate upon it, and in your hearts, that you may perform it. See, behold, I have set before you this day the way of life, which is the path of the good, and the way of death, which is the path of the evil.

 

And so, it turns out that it was not a question in the first-century Torah-keepers’ minds that they could walk-out Torah perfectly. Such thinking is denominationalist misdirecting and misinterpretation of the true context of what walking Torah blamelessly or perfectly means. But rather, it was the understanding that one MUST “abide”, “dwell”; walk in Torah as an uncompromising lifestyle. And truth be told, regardless of what lifestyle humans choose to live out, they can never maintain without incidents of failure or error. Humans are by nature prone to mess up. We error in every aspect of our lives: Areas within and outside our faith. And Yah realizes this basic fact.

 

So then, as it relates to our being able to walk-out Torah blamelessly, if one were to stumble in their walking out of Torah, they were to follow the prescribed provisions for atonement. Before Yeshua, the would-be Torah-keeper would follow the prescribed provisions in Torah to atone for their transgressions. Coupled with following those atonement provisions (sanctioned sacrifices), the offender had to present those atonement provisions having a contrite and humble spirit and broken heart, enjoined by a sincere repentance and a desperate seeking of forgiveness by Yah.

 

4. We cited the likely reason for such widespread acceptance in the belief that no one can keep Torah perfectly as having to do with a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding and distinction between the concepts of “sin” and “transgression of the Law”. Although the two concepts are connected in fundamental ways, there is also a distinction between the two.

 

 

Today, I want us to examine some key concepts that I believe will put us in the best position to properly interpret what Shaul meant by “Where there is no law, there is no transgression.” And those concepts are (1) understanding the apostle’s use of the term law, aka “nomos”; (2) the phrase “works of the law” that Shaul uses once in Romans 9 and 4 times in Galatians; (3) the role of Torah in the lives of Yah’s chosen ones and in the lives of those who have no knowledge of Torah.

 

 

Nomos (I.e., The Law) in the Brit HaDashah—An Issue of Discernment

 

As crazy as it may sound to many of us who are sensitive to the things that are contained in the Oral Tradition—the Talmud and Mishnah and such—that which is attributed to the so-called Jewish sages—the first-century A.D. religious Jew steadfastly viewed the Oral Torah to be equal to, if not greater in some respects, to the Written Torah, popularly referred to as the Law of Moses. For the “Oral Law/Torah/Tradition” specified for the observant Jew, the proper manner in which one kept or walked out the “Written Torah.” Some have described the “Oral Law/Torah” as the essential “fence around” the “Written Torah” or the “Law of Moses.” In many observant Jewish minds (both ancient and modern), the Oral and the Written served as sort of a “unified whole”. They were indiscernible. They were inseparable.

 

So, when one is studying the apostolic writings, it behooves the spiritually discerning Messianic Truth-seeker to carefully discern which Torah (oral, written, or both) the Greek term “nomos” (in the English, “law”) is specifically addressing in that passage. That is, if there is to be any true understanding of author’s true distinction at all. In Shaul’s case, many Messianic Commentators have concluded that wherever the apostle employed the term “nomos”, he more than likely meant both the Oral and Written Torahs, with a handful of exceptions which are made evident by those passages’ overall context.

 

When I first learned that certain Messianic Commentators of scripture believed Shaul’s use of the term “nomos” in just about all cases referred to both the Oral and Written Torahs, I was a bit skeptical. However, after coming to understand just how intertwined the two sets of laws had become in early Rabbinic Judaism, and how influential the Oral Torah had become in virtually every religious and nominal Jew’s life, I have come full circle and agree, in principle, with those commentators’ sentiment.

 

Case in point: We have the story of the Gentile convert Cornelius in Acts 10. If you recall, Cornelius was a Roman Centurion who happened to be what Judaism would refer to as a “God-fearer”. Cornelius was led through a vision from heaven to send for the Apostle Shimon Keefa (aka Peter) who was at that time dwelling in Joppa. As Cornelius’ men approached the home where Keefa was staying, Keefa himself was experiencing an ecstatic vision. And we find out that the vision he had served to enlighten him to the profound fact that Yah is no respecter of person. That Abba is calling and loves both the Jew and the Greek. And thus, he—Keefa/Peter-could no longer hold the biases against Gentiles that most religious Jews of his time held towards Gentiles.

 

As Keefa was entering Cornelius’ home, he says to him:

 

You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. Yet Yah has shown me that I should call no person defiled or ritually unclean (Acts 10:28; NET modified).

 

Was this which Shimon Keefa stated to Cornelius, from a “Law” perspective, accurate? Well, yes and no. You see, the Written Torah never made such a prohibition. Yah has never been “a respecter of persons” (reference: Romans 10:34; Deuteronomy/Devarim 10:17). However, according to the Oral Tradition, Keefa was absolutely correct. (Reference: Avodah Zara 29b, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 113; 123:51; 128:1; Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1:1; and others.)

 

Now, although Jewish thinkers and teachers, not wanting to appear bigoted and haters in general to the outside world, have over the centuries gone to great lengths to stress that these and other rabbinic laws were rendered for purposes of “separating Jews from gentiles in order to prevent Jews from adopting idolatrous behavior”: These laws were instead used to foster and incite fear and bigotry among the Jewish citizenry, which in effect led to the erection of an oftentimes inseparable social and religious partition between Jew and non-Jew.

 

And so, we see here in this example that even one of the greatest apostles, well after his receiving of the Ruach HaKodesh (aka the Holy Spirit) on that Great Day of Shavu’ot (aka Pentecost), up to the Cornelius incident, still held tightly to many of the tenets of the Oral Law. And that vision that Keefa experienced was meant to purge out that error that is the Oral Tradition/Law/Torah.

 

Summary: “Nomos”, as used throughout Shaul’s writings, may be referring to the Written Torah; or the Oral Tradition/Law/Torah; or both. It just depends on the context in which it is used in the focus passage. When the context is not clear, as we find in many instances throughout the Book of Romans, it’s generally safe to conclude that the apostle is referring to both the Written and Oral Laws or Torahs.

 

Interpreting Paul’s Popular Phrase: “Works of the Law”

 

In addition to the Greek term “nomos”, Shaul uses the phrase “works of the Law” at leasts five-times in his writings (references: Romans 9:32; Galatians 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10).

 

The underlying concept that sort of partially defines this phrase is one that: If you steadfastly walked out Torah (let’s say the Written Torah) in accordance with whichever Jewish sect’s Oral Laws/Traditions in which you affiliated with (halachah), you would be deemed as righteous by that sect. And being deemed righteous by that sect because you walked in that sect’s ways, you would escape the curses of the covenant (contained in the Written Law) and also Yah’s righteous wrath.

 

Those of course who neglected or disregarded those sect-specific halachic principles in their walk would be subject to Yah’s wrath and the curses of the Covenant.

 

This was made all the more evident in the example of those who made up the Qumran Community, who despised the other Jewish sects (e.g., Pharisees and Sadducees) that worshiped and operated at the Temple in Yerushalayim. According to certain Dead Sea Scroll writings, only those who adhered to the halachah of their [Qumran] community were to be considered righteous before Elohim. They were referred to in some of the Dead Sea Scroll writings as “Sons of Righteousness” (DSS 4QMMT).

 

So, one’s righteousness was often seen as being dependent on the specific set of halachic laws, rules, and traditions that one kept or walked in.

 

Therefore, in great part, it was this “sect-specific righteousness” mindset that Shaul was having to contend with in his writings to both the Roman and Galatian Messianic Assemblies. And so, the phrase “works of the Law” had to do with these “sect-specific” halachic requirements that were being forced upon new non-Jewish converts in order for him/her to be admitted into the Assemblies of Messiah. Again, to the Orthodox Jew of Shaul’s day, these halachic practices served to make one righteous according to the leaders of those sects. This “sect-specific,” halachic-generated righteousness had nothing to do with being in a faithful, obedient, covenant relationship with the Creator of the Universe. But rather, their brand of righteousness had everything to do with conforming to sectarian Jewish halachah.

 

For the Judaizer, or as Torah Scholar/Commentator Tim Hegg prefers to call them, “Influencers”, “works of the Law/Torah” featured, in many cases, physical circumcision for the men entering their assembly. To these, a Gentile male was required to become a proselyte in order for him to be (1) admitted to the ekklesia/kehila, and (2) to be reckoned as righteous. You see, to these so-called “influencers”, the Gospel message was about becoming Jewish and trusting in one’s “Jewishness”. And so, when you drill down to it, only a sectarian Jew could ever be viewed as righteous in this world, and escape Yah’s judgment and wrath.

 

This sentiment and understanding among the sectarians/Influencers/Judaizers seem to have been substantially based upon their manipulation of Deuteronomy/Devarim 27:26:

 

Cursed is the one who refuses to keep the words of this law (I.e., as they saw it, their oral law because they believed Moshe passed down the oral tradition to their religious leaders to administer) (NET).

 

Shaul, being the consummate Torah scholar and former Pharisee that he was, anticipated the Judaizers’ stance on this verse of Torah by phrasing the text accordingly:

 

Cursed is everyone who does not remain in everything that is written in the Book of the Law to do them (Romans 4:10).

 

Needless to say, the anti-Torah crowd simply loves this passage. Right? Because the way that Shaul words it, helps feed the notion, on their part, that any who would dare keep Torah are cursed. So, in the error-ridden mind of the anti-Torah activist, they rectify the question of Yah’s people walking in Torah by asking: “Why [would you] keep something [such as the “law”] where you’ll automatically be cursed? Thus, their remedy for this predicament is for one to outright abandon Torah-living, and embrace their “grace perverted” Gospel.

 

Summary: Paul’s use of the phrase “works of the law” is generally referring to an adherence to sect-specific halachic laws, traditions, and practices such as circumcision, for purposes of being saved, so to speak, and admitted into the Body of Messiah. It is never to be understood as derogatory of those who are in an faithful, obedient covenant relationship with the Creator of the Universe and who are properly walking out Yah’s Torah.

 

The Role of Torah in the Lives of Yah’s Chosen People

 

It must be understood that Yah’s Torah was never meant as the means by which one enters into a covenant relationship with the Almighty. Nor does Yah’s Torah make one righteous by steadfast keeping of it. But rather, Torah serves in great part as the standard by which Yah’s chosen ones are to live and walk-out as they exist in that covenant relationship with Him.

 

Torah not only identifies or defines what sin is in the eyes of the Creator, but also the required penalties that are associated with violations/transgressions of Yah’s instructions in righteousness (I.e., Yah’s Torah).

 

And this is a point of much confusion for those who are within and outside our Faith Community. For as it served to do with our ancient Hebrew cousins, Yah’s Torah “magnifies” or “illuminates” our desperate need for a savior; our human tendency to not meet Yah’s established standards and marks of righteousness in the eyes of the Holy One of Yisra’el. Thus, Torah-defined-sin is all the more made evident to the transgressor of Yah’s instructions in righteousness. Consequently, it will not have the same illuminating or magnifying effect for one who does not respect Yehovah and His Ways. Why? Well, Abba stated it beautifully through the Prophet Isaiah/Yesha’Yahu:

 

(8) For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith YHVH. (9) For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts (55:8-9; KJV modified).

 

Shaul wrote to the Corinthian Assembly of Messianic Believers:

 

(14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit (Ruach) of Yah: For they are foolishness unto him. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. (16) For who hath known the mind of the Master, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Messiah (1 Corinthians 2:14-16; KJV modified).

 

In other words beloved: Humanity has her own concepts of what constitutes sin, while Yah has His own understanding of what sin is. Consequently, Yah’s concept and perspective of sin is the only one that matters. Man’s perspectives and concepts about sin mean absolutely nothing in the whole scheme of things.

 

What’s more, Yah’s perspectives of what constitutes sin also come with prescribed penalties for said sins.

 

That being said, when Yah’s Torah is not the law of the land, there can really be NO such transgression or violation of Torah. But rather, sin is defined by humanity’s own thoughts and concepts.

 

Certainly, to some lesser or greater extent, unrepentant humanity may define sin and treat sin according to their natural ability to discern between right and wrong.

 

Shaul wrote about this to his Roman Messianic readers:

 

(18) For the wrath of Elohim is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people (I.e., sin) who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, (19) because what can be known about Yah is plain to them, because Yah as made it plain to them. (20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. (21) For although they knew Yah, they did not glorify Him as Elohim or give Him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened (Romans 1; NET).

 

So then, rulings or verdicts that human courts render to address violations of sin as they see it, or violations of their established rules and laws and traditions, in many cases will not properly address the sin as Yah sees it.

 

Thus, as we saw evident with the ancients who left Egypt, their transgressions were made all the more evident after Yah codified and gifted His Torah to them. Case in point: Many of the Exodus Yisra’elites no doubt had been worshiping the “golden calf” their entire lives up to the point when Yah commanded that they have no other gods before Him (Exodus/Shemot 20:3-6, 23). Prior to the giving of this commandment, our ancient cousins’ worship of the gold calf was never an issue and the worship of it was viewed in many ways as a sanctioned way of life for them.

 

Despite Yah being known to those who were attached to the patriarchs, they persisted in their worshiping pagan gods:

 

(1) And Yah said unto Ya’achov, ‘Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there. And make there an altar unto Yehovah, that appeared unto thee when thou fleddest from the fact of Esav thy brother.’ (2) Then Ya’achov said unto his household, and to all that were with him, ‘Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments. (3) And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto Yah, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. (4) And they gave unto Ya’achov all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and ya’acho hid them under the oak which was by Shechem (Genesis/Beresheit 35; KJV modified).

 

Did the ancients’ worship of their pagan gods constitute “sin?” In the eyes of Yah, indeed. And certainly, to these who worshiped their pagan gods, they had instilled in them naturally the understanding that Yehovah existed, and they inherently knew the difference between right and wrong. These will in the end be subject to Yah’s wrath and judgment based upon their natural understanding of the difference between right and wrong and their knowledge of Yah as Elohim. But they would not be subject to Yah’s Torah because it had not been codified and rendered to them at this point. And where Yah had not established commandments prohibiting the worship of these pagan gods, rhetorically, as Shaul is stating in our focus verse of Romans 4:15, there can be no transgression. For how can one violate an instruction that did not previously exist? 

 

But idolatry and pagan worship certainly was something that could be transgressed or violated once Yah gave the commandments prohibiting His chosen ones from engaging in it. So, from that point forward in the life of His chosen people, golden calf worship was to be viewed and treated as a violation of Yah’s way of life and subject to the penalties associated with it. Thus, worship of the golden calf by Yah’s people would naturally incite or invoke Yah’s righteous wrath and judgment upon violators or transgressors of Yah’s instructions prohibiting pagan worship.

 

But as clear as Yah’s instructions were prohibiting His people from engaging in pagan worship, there remained within many of them, the desire and stubborn willingness to disobey this commandment and engage in the prohibited worship. And of course, we know from scripture that the violators of that commandment faced Yah’s deadly wrath.

 

Today, those who profess to be people of the Bible have knowledge of Yah’s Torah, to a greater and lesser extent let’s just say. And thus, each and every one of those rational individuals are subject to Yah’s wrath which will be rendered through the judgment He will mete out through the framework of Torah. Those who for whatever reason do not possess knowledge of Torah, they will be subject to Yah’s wrath which will be rendered through the judgment He will mete out outside the framework of Torah.

 

Shaul addressed this in his letter to the Roman Messianic Assembly:

 

(12) All who have sinned outside the framework of Torah will die outside the framework of Torah; and all who have sinned within the framework of Torah will be judged by Torah. (13) For it is not merely the hearers of Torah whom Yah considers righteous; rather, it is the doers of what Torah says who will be made righteous in God’s sight. (14) For whenever Gentiles, who have no Torah, DO NATURALLY WHAT THE TORAH REQUIRES, then these, even though they don’t have Torah, for themselves are Torah (I.e., these operated in Yah’s moral laws. These simply did not possess the ritual and ceremony of Torah) (Romans 2; CJB).