Fashioning the Elements of the Tabernacle-Torah Reading 64 (Triennial Reading Cycle)

The Controversy 

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, several months ago I learned of a teaching (or understanding if you will) that was making its way through portions of our beloved Faith Community regarding a “relevant perceived distinction” between the Torah concepts (or elements) of the Books (aka Cepher(s)) of the Law and Covenant.

 

I say “relevant perceived distinction” between these two concepts or elements because the very heart of their teachings or understanding of these seeming two entities—assuming there is in fact a distinct difference between the Books of the Law and Covenant—suggests that Messianics/Rooters/Netzaris are supposed to keep the commandments contained in one of the books and not keep the commandments in the other.

 

The Controversy: An Issue of Distinction

 

This again assumes there is a relevant distinction to be made between the two Books or Cephers. As you may well imagine, this understanding or teaching is problematic in more ways than one. It’s problematic first and foremost because certain influential individuals in the Body of Mashiyach are making it their business to instruct members of our Faith Community to keep what they have determined to be one set of instructions and not keep the other set of instructions. And I don’t know about you: my understanding of Torah is plain and simple: we keep all of the teachings and instructions of Torah that we can physically and spiritually-keep. We keep those instructions in Spirit and in Truth, utilizing the example and teachings of our Master Yahoshua as our guide.

 

The other problem associated with this controversy is that a great many members of our Faith Community have bought into the understanding “lock-stock-and barrel,” and some I would imagine are leading their friends to adopt this teaching as well.

 

And of course, there are other issues to consider regarding this controversy. But needless to say, when this controversy came to my attention and I was able to grasp what the issue was really about, I was quite disturbed for obvious reason.

 

Not a New Controversy

 

I should point out that this controversy is not a new one. We can clearly see evidence that this teaching goes back to at least 2016.

 

Fortunately, however, a great many Hebrew Roots/Messianic ministries have set out to debunk this controversy in an attempt to get our Community back on track . And from what I can tell, for the most part, these ministries have done a great job rightly dividing the Word of Truth and informing the Body that this controversial teaching or understanding is not biblically supported.

 

The Book of the Law Versus the Book of the Book of the Covenant Controversy

 

But for our purposes today, we’re simply going to discuss this week’s Torah Reading as presented to us in Exodus 24:1-18. And then we’ll look at the Torah Reading from the perspective of the Brit Hadashah reading that is found in Matthew 26:27, 28. And then we’ll close out with a discussion of the controversy and hopefully put some more nails in the controversial teaching’s/understanding’s coffin.

 

So let’s get started here. And if you are so inclined, I would encourage you to study (not just read) for yourself this week’s Torah Reading. I will not actually read out the passage here in our study today as much as to simply summarize it with commentary.

 

The Invitation

 

Aharon, his sons, and 70-elders of Yishrael (I refer to them as the entourage) are invited to accompany Moshe up the Mountain of YHVH to worship from afar (24:1; 24:9). In Hebrew the term used by the writer is “shachah {shaw kaw}.” Shachah interpreted in English is to “bow down; to bow down deeply; to do obeisance.” 

 

We find mentioned here in this first verse of the chapter that Moshe was to be the only one permitted to come near (i.e., in Hebrew: “nagash.”) unto YHVH.

 

Apart from the stated members of the entourage, no other members of the camp were permitted to go up with Moshe to meet with YHVH (24:2). The construction of the Hebrew used here is such that Moshe would be permitted to approach and come near unto YHVH, while the others in Moshe’s group would NOT be permitted to come near (i.e., “they will not come…” or “they must not come…” near).

 

Why the Invitation?

 

Now, this invitation was not an off the cuff invitation. Like everything else in life, Yah had a reason for extending this invitation to the members of the entourage. In fact, it will not be until we get to verse-nine of our reading chapter before we can piece together the reason for the invitation. And we’ll touch upon those reasons once we get to 24:9.

 

Why Only Moshe Allow to Draw Near?

Thus Moshe only was permitted to draw near unto YHVH on the Mount. Why? Well, obviously the most likely reason was because of the relationship Moshe enjoyed  and shared with YHVH. In fact, the writer described the relationship Moshe had with YHVH as one where Moshe spoke “face to face [with YHVH], as a man speaks to his friend…” (Exo. 33:11).

We know that Moshe was one of just a small handful of men in the whole of humankind history to have had such a close and intimate relationship with the Creator of the Universe. And it was the writer of the Cepher (I.e., the Book) of Hebrew that explained why this relationship was so: because of Moshe’s immense Faith and obedience to YHVH’s commands (Heb. 11:23-28).

 

Furthermore, I believe Moshe was uniquely handpicked of YHVH to lead His chosen people—no doubt selected by YHVH from the beginning of time. And by virtue of that handpicked status, Moshe enjoyed and realized one of the most intimate relationships with the Almighty any human has ever experienced on this planet, with the exception of Yahoshua Messiah.

 

So invested was YHVH in Moshe that He performed many miraculous, and at times, fearsome wonders. These wonders were intended to certify Moshe as Yah’s man of the hour. This is evidenced in Exodus 19:9. Here, we find that Father tells  Moshe that He would come to the nation in a thick cloud in such a way that “the people may hear when I speak with you and believe you forever.”

 

Along those same lines of Moshe being Yah’s most favored at the time, we find recorded in Exodus 32:10 (a most poignant and telling verse) Yah, outraged over the Golden Calf incident, saying to Moshe:

 

“…now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make OF YOU A GREAT NATION…” (QBE).

 

The other reason Moshe was permitted to enter into the presence of YHVH is he possessed clean hands, a pure heart, did not lie, nor make promises he did not intend to keep. Such are those who Father exclusively permits into His holy presence (Psa. 24:3, 4).

 

Netzarim Access to YHVH

 

For us today, our access to the presence of the Almighty comes through the work of Mashiyach (Joh. 10:7, 9; 14:6; Eph. 3:12; Heb. 7:25; 1 Pet. 3:18); the agency of the Ruach haKodesh (Eph. 2:18); and supported by our uncompromising faith (Heb. 11:6). And the primary vehicle for our access to YHVH is of course through steadfast, Spirit-based and led, and faith-infused prayer (Mat. 6:6; 1 Pet. 1:17).

A Slight Conundrum

So there seems to be a slight conundrum here.

 

It appears that the invitation for the entourage to come up to worship before YHVH on the Mount, as recorded in verse 1 is out of place. For in the previous verses of the preceding chapter, 23, Moshe is receiving instructions from YHVH. Then out of nowhere in verses 1 and 2 of our focus chapter, 24, the invitation is given. Then in verse 3 the narrative records Moshe going to tell the people all the words He’d received from YHVH.

 

So what gives, did the entourage go up to worship YHVH in accordance with the invitation as given in verses 1 and 2 of the 24th chapter, then afterward, Moshe goes to tell the people all the words he received from YHVH?

 

Well, if one were to pick up the story beginning at verse 1 of the 24th chapter, one would be hard-pressed to understand what was actually going on here. For the answer to this conundrum is easily answered if one takes verses 1 and 2 in context of the previous 2-1/2-chapters (specifically, 20:21 through 23:33).

 

In fact, we really should go back to 20:18 to get even more clarification as to what is going on in our focus passage for today. Recall, that the people had assembled at the base of Mount Sinai. They experienced things that no human has ever experienced and they were terrified and awestruck. And having just received the 10-commandments which YHVH spoke down to them from the Mount, fearful and beside themselves, the people said the following to Moshe:

 

“Behold, YHVH our Elohim has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that God speaks with man, and he (man) lives. Now therefore, why should we die? For this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of YHVH our Elohim anymore, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? Draw near, and hear all that YHVH our Elohim shall say, and speak to us all that YHVH our Elohim shall speak unto you; and we will hear it, and do it. But let not God speak with us, lest we die” (QBE).

 

The Rule is Set—YHVH Will Speak Only Through Moshe

 

This confrontation between Moshe and the people regarding their fear of having the Almighty communicate directly to them was historic. It set the course for the remainder of Yisrael’s history. No longer would Father speak directly to His people without going through His chosen mediator. In this case, that mediator was Moshe.

 

This is confirmed in Deuteronomy 5:23-29 as YHVH remarked unto Moshe:

 

“I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you; they have done well in all that they have spoken…” (Deu. 5:28).

 

Moshe Receives the Elements of the Covenant and Presents Proposed Contract to the People

 

So coming into this week’s reading, we find Moshe’s and the entourage’s invitation as expressed in verses 1 and 2, comes at the very end of YHVH’s dictation of the elements of the Covenant He was establishing with Yisrael. And the elements of this Covenant extends from Exodus 20, all the way up to Exodus 24:2.

 

It then becomes Moshe’s job, as mediator, to present the terms of the contract, the Covenant, to the people. And if the people agreed to the terms of the Covenant, then in accordance with common ANE covenant practices, it would be ratified with blood, followed by a Covenantal meal. In fact, we will find in Exodus 24:9-11, that the invitation that YHVH extended to the entourage in verse 1, was for the leadership of the nation to partake in the Covenant meal.

 

Moshe Drafts-Up the Contract—Covenant

 

Thus we find Moshe delivers unto the people all that he had received directly from YHVH, which includes a large set of commandments, instructions and the ordinances. These formed the elements or provisions of the covenant between YHVH and the people. This was to be, what has widely been referred to as the “Sinai Covenant.”

 

And of course the people unanimously, so to speak, agree with the terms of the Covenant/Contract (24:3).

 

So in response to a verbal agreement from both parties (that is YHVH and the people) to the terms of the Covenant, Moshe goes ahead and drafts (writes)-up the Covenant (24:4).

 

The Covenant is Ratified

We see that early the next morning after obtaining agreement to Covenant by the people, Moshe builds an altar and installs 12-pillars (i.e., upright stones representing the 12-tribes of Israel) at the base (i.e., under) of the Mount (24:4). Archaeological digs of ANE sites have uncovered such memorials throughout the Middle East. It appears that such stones (or pillars) stood anywhere from a foot to the average standing height of a man. Interestingly, it was a common practice for the ancients to erect such monuments in their territories to commemorate treaties, visions, establish property boundaries and mark graves (ref. Gen. 32 and 28 respectively).

Young men of the nation were sent by Moshe to render burnt and peace offerings of oxen unto YHVH (24:5). Bear in mind that at this point in Yisrael’s history, the Tabernacle had not been erected; nor had the regimen of worship, sacrifices and offerings been detailed. These actions—building an altar, erecting pillars and sacrificing and taking the blood of the sacrificed animals to ratify a covenant–were in accordance with ANE practices of the day.

So what transpires next is clearly the ratification of the Covenant that had just been established between YHVH and Yisrael. Thus the blood of the sacrificed oxen served to confirm or validate this covenant (24:6-8).

 

[Consequently, I plan on doing a teaching on blood covenants in early 2020, Abba willing. I trust that that teaching will expand your understanding of what is recorded here. The whole concept of blood covenants is a very ancient, complex, yet fascinating practice that every Netzari should be aware of.]

 

Thus, Moshe essentially drew up a written contract between YHVH and Yisrael (i.e., the Book or in Hebrew, the Cepher of the Covenant), divided the blood from the oxen sacrifices between that which would be splattered upon the altar, and the rest would be used to ratify the covenant.

 

So, after the Covenant was read to the nation—that is, every commandment, law, and ordinance as recorded in Exodus 20 through 23—and the people as a whole verbalized they would do (that is, “asah,” accomplish) and obey (that is shama), Moshe sprinkled the people with half of the blood that was collected from the oxen sacrifice from that morning (24:7, 8).

Thus, with this reading, the people’s agreement to the terms of the Covenant as read, and the sprinkling of the Blood of the Covenant, the agreement between YHVH and the people would be permanently binding. The terms of the agreement could not be added to or subtracted from. And if any party were to break the covenant, that party’s  blood (that is, the blood of the offending party) would be required of them. Indeed, this was very serious stuff, not to be taken lightly. For in some sense, life and death hung on each member keeping their end of the bargain, so to speak. And we know that YHVH is holy and just and true. His very character and nature prevents Him from violating His own Words and agreements. Thus, the only party who could possibly break a covenant with the Almighty would be the Hebrews. Which we know they would do at the Golden Calf incident less than two-month from the ratification of the Covenant.

 

The Covenantal-Meal

So after the ratification of the covenant that day, Moshe, Aharon and sons, and 70-elders of Yisrael ascend the Mountain of Yah where, according to the text”…they (the entourage) saw the God of Yisrael” (24:10).

 

Related to this event, a widely posed question by some who love Yah’s Word is how in the world could the members of Moshe’s entourage see YHVH and live. You see, it was a widely held understanding among the ancients that any human who happened to see the Almighty would summarily die.

 

In fact, it was YHVH Himself who confirmed this ancient understanding in His response to Moshe’s request to see Him—more specifically, to know His Ways that He may know Him and find favor in His sight as well as to see the Creator’s glory (Exo. 33:13,18). Father said to Moshe:

 

“I will make all my goodness pass before you (suggestive of Yah’s appearance in a fashion that would summarize/encapsulate His glory, brilliance  and beauty) and will proclaim the Name of YHVH before you…You cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live” (Exo. 33:19,20; QBE). And, of course, as the story goes, Father places Moshe in the cleft of some rocks on the Mount to protect him as YHVH passed by Him. Moshe thus was able to see the wake of the Creator’s Person, the appearance of which was apparently glorious beyond the capacity of humans to adequately describe it (Exo. 33:22,23).

 

 So how were the members of the entourage able to see the Almighty (24:10), eat and drink before YHVH, and not die (24:11)? Seems as though we may have here a slight biblical contradiction.

No Real Contradiction Here?

In my humble opinion, no man can see the “face” of YHVH and live as stated by Father. However, Father has obviously allowed individuals to see manifestations of His immense glory such as His feet in 24:10 and His back in passing (33:23). But it is clear from various passages throughout Scripture that humans, with the sole exception of Yahoshua, have not ever, nor can they ever, see Yah and live (Joh. 1:18; 1 Tim. 6:16).

The other thing to keep in mind when meditating on this encounter by Moshe’s entourage is that Yah is a Spirit. Spirits are not visible to the visible eye unless the entity permits it. Some have proposed that what the members of the entourage saw was a “vision” of the Almighty; or maybe as was described in chapter 33, a manifestation of Father’s glory.

 

I personally believe that the members of the entourage somehow saw Father’s feet atop a pavement of sapphire stone as described in Exodus 24:10. For Father told Moshe in chapter 33 of Exodus that no man can see His face and live. Therefore, what did Father do to fulfill Moshe’s request to see His glory? Father allowed Moshe to see His back as He passed before Moshe who was hidden safely in some clefts of rocks.

 

Some who have done intense studies in the area of divine manifestations have uncovered accounts that suggests YHVH and His divine court appear as flaming entities to humans. So, take that for what it’s worth.

Regardless, the entourage experienced YHVH’s glory and did not die as was commonly understood by the ancients (24:11). In fact, the members of the entourage enjoyed a covenantal meal in the presence of the Almighty.

 

Jewish Sages Assert Time and Being Reference

 

As an aside, Jewish sages assert in their Targum of Jonathan that the entity giving this command to Moshe was actually Michael, the prince of wisdom. And these sages go so far as to assert that Michael was not a created angel, but the eternal Word; Wisdom; the Son of God. And this instruction that was given to Moshe by Michael was given on the 7th-day of the 3rd-Month, which would have been the day after the giving of the 10-commandments (as recorded in Exodus 20).

 

One or Two Ascensions Up the Mount of God?

 

Moving on.

 

A strange thing takes place in the narrative: the entourage enjoys the covenantal meal in the presence of the Almighty (verse 11), and then in the very next verse (verse 12) the Almighty calls Moshe up the Mountain to receive the commandments on tables of stone.

 

Now, we must ask ourselves: was this an add on to the covenantal meal the members of the entourage enjoyed in the presence of YHVH? Or was this a separate ascension up the mountain to be made by Moshe?

 

According to the Cepher of Jubilees, this ascension up the Mountain by Moshe would be a separate event that took place on the 16th day of the 3rd biblical month (The Cepher of Jubilees 1:1-10).This event was NOT part and parcel of the covenantal meal as recorded in 24:10 and 11.

 

In fact, this ascension which is documented in 24:12 through 18, would be the start of Moshe’s 40-day sojourn on the Mount where He receives instructions on the construction of the Tabernacle, the elements of the Tabernacle, the various provisions for the Levitical Priesthood, and the protocols for the Tabernacle worship (Exo. 25:1-31:18).

 

Rabbinic Tradition Challenging the Rule of Torah

Interestingly enough, Rabbinic tradition contends that what Moshe would receive during this ascension up the Mount where he would sojourn in the presence of YHVH for 40-days and receive the stone tablets and instructions on the Tabernacle worship system—would be the Talmud. Take that for what it’s worth.

 

Moshe Begins His 40-Day Sojourn on the Mountain of God

 

Nevertheless, we’ve biblically established that this ascension up the Mount by Moshe was a separate trip from that of the entourage’s covenantal meal trip. This time, Moshe takes with him up the Mount his trusty assistant, young Yahoshua (aka Joshua) (24:13).

Now, as the Exodus chronology goes, we are first introduced to Yahoshua/Joshua in Exodus 17 as the commander of the Hebrew fighters who went to successfully defend the nation against Amalek. But after the Yahoshua-led military victory, we don’t read anything more about him until verse Exodus 24:13.

 

We know from 24:16 that Moshe hung back somewhere on the mountain and did not ascend to the presence of the Almighty for 6-days. It’s likely Moshe hung out with Yahoshua during this week-long-period.

 

But (50) once Moshe was called into the presence of YHVH, what happened to Yahoshua? Well, it’s likely, in my opinion, that Yahoshua stayed afar off for the duration of the 40-days. Prior to leaving the camp, Moshe leaves oversight of the camp in the hands of the elders (24:14). And we know what ultimately transpired under the supervision of the elders Moshe left behind: Yes, the Golden Calf incident.

 

Given what we know about the character and zeal of Yahoshua, I doubt he went back down the Mountain to the camp to await Moshe’s return. It would stand to reason that Joshua remained close to his master—Moshe—on the Mount as he possibly could.

 

Matthew 26:27, 28

 

We find in the Brit Hadashah portion of this week’s Torah Reading (Matthew 26:27, 28) Yahoshua HaMashiyach introduce to His inner core of disciples, the Renewed Covenant:

“And He took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them and said, ‘Take drink from it all of you. This is My blood of the renewed covenant, which for the sake of many is shed for the forgiveness of sins'” (AENT).

This is one of the most crucial passages of the entire Bible. Here we find the blessed hope of every Child of the Most High. It is here that we find our Master renewing the broken covenant that had been firmly and legally established at Sinai, and was the focus of our Torah Reading for this week.

 

The English term “renewed” in Hebrew is “chadasha” and in Aramaic it is “khawdata.” It means expressly and simply: renewed. Examples of this term may be found in Psalm 51:10: “chadasha (renew) a right ruach within me” and in Lamentations 5:21: “chadasha (renew) our days as of old.” Other nuances of chadasha imply “repair” as used in Isaiah 61:4: “chadasha (repair) the waste places.”

 

The Renewed Covenant Mediated By Yeshua

The renewed covenant being introduced here by Master goes back to Jeremiah 31:31-37. I’ve spoken extensively on the topic of the renewed covenant and its relevance to the world. Quite simply, Father revealed through this and other prophets that He would put Torah in our inward parts and write it in our hearts and the seed of Yisrael shall never cease being a nation before the Almighty.

YHVH could have held the nation and the rest of humanity entirely responsible for their violation of the covenant and for their sins which warranted the eternal death sentence. Yet, in His infinite love for us, Abba made provision for our death sentence debt to be paid in full. This was made so through the sacrificial death of our Master Yahoshua on the execution stake.

The Mediators of the Covenants

Before we look at the controversy regarding the Books of the Law and Covenant, I want to quickly point an obvious parallel here as it relates to mediators. Moshe served as the covenant-mediator between Yisrael and YHVH at Mount Sinai, while Yahoshua, our Master, served as the renewed covenant-mediator between YHVH and the world.

 

This is the brilliance of our Heavenly Father being played out for us in the pages of our Bibles. If only the world could appreciate these truths, wouldn’t you agree?

 

The Cepher of the Covenant

 

Which now brings us to controversy I mentioned earlier, that in part surrounds our Torah Reading for this week.

 

YHVH proposes marriage to Yisrael and both parties (YHVH and Yisrael) agree to the terms of that marriage covenant or “ketubah” (Exo. 24).The covenant is conditional (Exo. 19:5,6).

 

Violation of the terms of the Marriage Covenant by either party would nullify the beneficial points of that covenant and incur a penalty (i.e., the death of the offending party) that must be paid. The terms of the contract or covenant could not be changed by either party.

Now, the covenantal process involved Moshe preparing the people to meet YHVH in Exodus 19, followed by YHVH dictating to Moshe the terms of the covenant in Exodus 20-23, which the people verbally agreed to in Exodus 24.

This agreed to covenant is then ratified via blood, followed by the sharing of a meal (Exo. 24:5-11).

It should be noted that YHVH followed the same process for establishing a covenant with Avraham:

 

(1) The proposal was made by YHVH to Avraham (Gen. 12:2; 15:5).

 

(2) YHVH and Avraham agree to the terms of the Covenant (Gen. 15:6).

 

(3) The Covenant is ratified with blood (Gen. 15:9).

 

(4) Covenant-confirming meal (Gen. 18:4-8).

 

This of course is referred to as the Abrahamic Covenant. But the focus of our Torah Reading for this week was of course the Sinai Covenant. And the point I’m attempting to make here is that the establishing of both covenants had similarities in terms of their establishment.

The Cepher of the Law (i.e., Torah)

Certain teachers assert that the breaking of the Covenant by Yisrael (with the Golden Calf incident) prompted YHVH to implement a provision that would postpone the death penalty Yisrael brought upon herself. This postponement would extend until such time that Father would renew the covenant through the work and agency of Y’shua HaMashiyach. These contend that the instructions that were given to Moshe after the ratification of the Covenant composed the Cepher of the Law. Thus, the Cepher of the Law was significantly distinct from the Cepher of the Covenant. Nevertheless, these same individuals assert that the Cepher of the Law did not replace the Cepher of the Covenant however.

 

The Cepher of the Law Temporarily Replaced the Cepher of the Covenant

So the thinking of those who propose that the Cepher of the Law replaced the Cepher of the Covenant for purposes of “punishing” Yisrael for the Golden Calf incident is the basis for this controversial understanding and teaching. And the teachers and proponents of this controversial understanding cite Paul as their “proof-positive” verse:

 

“Why then Torah? It was added because of apostasy, until the coming of the heir to whom the promise was made, and Torah was given by Messengers by the hand of a mediator (Gal. 3:19; AENT).

The controversial teaching continues that the Cepher of the Law implemented a sacrificial system that would temporarily satisfy the death penalty that Yisrael brought upon herself by breaking the covenant. And the provision of the Cepher of the Law would satisfy the death requirement until Mashiyach came to make a once and for all blood payment to atone for the sins of the covenant breakers. And it was Yahoshua’s sacrifice that would cover that incurred death penalty.

So the question that must be answered here is: Is Paul asserting that YHVH implemented the Cepher of the Law in response to the breaking of the Sinai Covenant?

 

The Deeper Controversy

Now, there is a deeper controversy that is tied to this erroneous teaching and understanding. Sadly, some in our Faith Community have fallen for this understanding hook-line-and sinker.

According to the controversy teachers, Yisrael (and all who would be engrafted into the commonwealth of Yisrael) were subject to and under the Cepher of the Law until the sacrifice of Yahoshua because of the Golden Calf incident. And upon Yahoshua’s sacrifice, the Cepher of the Law was done away with.

So then, the Cepher of the Law was administered by the Levitical Priesthood. With the sacrifice of Yahoshua, who was the High Priest of the Melchezedekian Priesthood, the Levitical Priesthood was replaced by the Melchezedekian Priesthood. This uprooting and replacing of the Levitical Priesthood by the Melchezedekian Priesthood by default nullified (or cancelled out) the Cepher of the Law. Consequently, the canceling out of the Cepher of the Law brought back into effect the once postponed Cepher of the Covenant. And it is the Cepher of the Covenant that Hebrew Rooters and Messianic are required to keep.

 

Clear? Or clear as mud?

And if, by chance, a Messianic or Rooter were to keep the canceled-out Cepher of the Law (or any portion thereof), they would be placing themselves under the curses of Deuteronomy 29.

 

Debunking the Controversy

Of course, there are many problems associated with this teaching. In fact, I contend that there is no exegetical, contextual basis upon which this understanding or teaching can competently stand.

 

To begin with: The view that the Book of the Law serves as a punishment for the Golden Calf incident cannot be supported on a reading of Galatians 3:19 alone. For it is fool-hearty and extremely dangerous to create doctrine and teachings around isolated Pauline verses.

 

According to the Galatians text, Paul writes that the “Law” “…was added because of transgressions.” Now, every English translation of this verse I’ve consulted has the term “transgression” pluralized. The pluralization of transgression, in my understanding, may or may not refer to the golden calf incident. In fact, it may apply to any number of transgressions, or simply to all transgressions or sins committed by humans.

 

The other thing that these teachers latch on to as it relates to this verse is a skewed understanding that Paul is referencing the breaking of the Sinai Covenant. In a careful, contextual reading of the chapter in which verse 19 falls (that being chapter 3), one can in no way make such an assertion. Nowhere does Paul reference specifically the Cepher of the Covenant.

 

What Paul does reference, however, or better, what Paul alludes to, is the Avrahamic Covenant, of which is contained the promise that YHVH made unto Avraham:

 

“…and in thee (speaking to Avraham) shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3).

 

“…and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him (speaking of Avraham and his descendants)” (Gen. 18:18)?

 

“And in thy seed (speaking to Avraham) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22:18).

 

And then we find in verse 8 of the 3rd Chapter of Galatians, Paul picking up on this promise:

 

“Because Elohim knew beforehand that the Gentiles would be declared righteous through faith that he first preached (that being the Gospel) to Avraham, as it is said in the Set Apart Scriptures, ‘In you will all the Gentiles be blessed’” (AENT).

 

And then in verses 16 through 18 of the same 3rd chapter:

 

“Now the promises were made to Avraham and to his seed as a covenant. He did not say seeds, as of many, but seed, as of one, that is Mashiyach. And this I say: that the covenant that was previously confirmed of Elohim in Mashiyach cannot be repudiated and (nor) the promise nullified by Torah which came four hundred and thirty years later. For if the inheritance is by Torah, then it would not be as the fulfillment of promise, but Elohim gave it to Avraham by a promise” (AENT).

 

So clearly, if there is any covenant being referenced here by Paul, it must be the Avrahamic Covenant. Not the Sinai covenant. And verse 19 further establishes that the Law—essentially Torah—was given because of “apostasy” in the Aramaic, or “transgressions” in the Greek. And the Law, when kept by God’s children, would temporarily stave off the penalty of death until Yeshua came. Once Yeshua atoned for the sins of the world, our death penalty debt was paid in full. Thus, we keep Torah to remind us how far we are from the YHVH’s standards for holy and righteous living. We then continue to walk out those Torah provisions because it pleases Father when His children attempt to live holy and righteous lives, and because it is spiritually the proper thing to do.

 

The other thing we must keep in mind is that the Bible makes only a minor distinction between the Cephers of the Law and the Covenant in just a small handful of places in the Tanakh and the Brit Hadashah.

 

In the KJV, the “Book of the Law” is mentioned some 19 times, beginning in Deuteronomy 29:21. And this specific mention of “The Book of the Law” is mentioned two more times in the Book of Deuteronomy, five-times in the Book (Cepher) of Joshua, a half-dozen times in the history books of 2 Kings and Chronicles, a few times in the Book of Nehemiah, and once in the Brit Hadashah Cepher of Galatians. And it’s quite likely that the writers of these particular passages were not making any distinction between the Cephers of the Law and the Covenant. In other words, it’s more likely that the writers were referring inclusively to the whole of Torah, and not exclusively to just the provisions given after Exodus 25:1.

 

Now, as it relates to the Book (Cepher) of the Covenant, believe it or not, it is only mentioned three-times in the whole of Scripture. It appears once in our Torah Reading study for this week, and once in each of the two-historical books of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. And in the mention of the Book of the Covenant in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, it’s more likely the writers were referring to the entire Torah.

From a biblical, chronology perspective, there is no question that Father had already put into motion the administration and teaching of what some refer to as the separate Cepher or Book of the Law to Moshe before the Golden Calf incident even occurred. In fact, the Golden Calf Incident occurs in Exodus 32, while much of the Cepher of the Law was being dictated to Moshe by YHVH in chapters 25 through 31. So the erroneous teaching that the Cepher of the Law was given in direct response to the Golden Calf incident holds no exegetical, contextual water.

 

The last thing to keep in mind: Most of the elements contained in the Cepher of the Covenant are expounded upon in the Cepher of the Law, if one chooses to separate the two. So if one were to only keep what’s written in the Book of the Covenant, they would be keeping in many cases the very same laws and commandments contained in the Book of the Law. It’s a foolish argument.

 

Closing Thoughts

 

And of course, there are other problems associated with this controversial teaching, which we won’t get into in this discussion.

 

Bottom line friends, we can safely say and recognize that as far as we’re concerned, there is no relevant distinction between the Books of the Covenant and Law. In fact, even today, Jews and Jewish scholars make no substantive distinction between the Cepher of the Covenant and the Cepher of the Law. It stands to reason neither should we. We stand and keep the elements of Torah that we can still keep in accordance with Father’s providence, grace, Ruach and Truth.

 

This week’s Torah Reading serves to remind us of YHVH’s work with Yisrael and how we have become the beneficiaries of a better covenant through Yahoshua Mashiyach. So we keep the whole of Torah to the best of our ability, in Spirit and in Truth. Our salvation, however, is not founded in our keeping of Torah, but in the work of our Master, Yahoshua HaMashiyach and YHVH’s immense grace. This is the entire basis of the renewed covenant that was mediated on our behalf by our Master Yeshua. Let us rejoice and be glad in this reality and walk out our Faith with fear and trembling such that all people may see our good works and glorify our Father which is in heaven (Mat. 5:16).

 

Faithfully.