• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Mishpatim

Mark C

Mark C

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
The weekly Torah portion (or "parsha") for this week is called "Mishpatim" in the Hebrew, for "Ordinances", and includes the oft-discussed (on BF, and by students of Torah, of course, not the 'mainstream' ;) ) Exodus 21:10 verse.

Some here may find the audio podcast of that teaching, done by myself and Jeff Gilbert, interesting (even though the reference to polygyny in this portion is not central to the understanding, only incidental). It was recorded from the "Talking Torah" room on Paltalk, where Jeff and I (and normally another pastor/missionary in Costa Rica, but not this week) talk about the specifics. In particular, I contend that this portion is one of the most "politically INcorrect" in all of Scripture, and also among the most ignored. It is also the place where the entire basis for what was once, back when we were a nation of "law, not of men", called the 'Common Law' can be found:

http://www.waytozion.org/teachings/Jeff ... gTorah.mp3




[ "Talking Torah" on Paltalk is a weekly gathering of "Torah-Observant Believers" in Messiah. It is live each Shabbat (Saturday) beginning at 7:00 AM Mountain Time, 8:00 AM Central with a recorded study. The live teachings begin at 9:00 AM Mountain. This week, Jeff Gilbert did the first session, I followed live thereafter. Both of us also participate in a weekly "Torah Teachers Round Table" program on KPJC Radio, Salem, Oregon, which is podcast on Hebrew Nation Radio, as well as a number of other daily and weekly shows. ]
 
Hi Mark,

I am not desiring to get into any debate with you, but I do have a question. What is the difference in your mind between your core views and Judaizers?

Respectfully
 
DaPastor said:
Hi Mark,

I am not desiring to get into any debate with you, but I do have a question. What is the difference in your mind between your core views and Judaizers?

Respectfully
Click to expand...

No offense, Randy, but most people who use the term "judaizer" don't have a CLUE what those in Scripture who used the original term actually meant by it. And it is NOT what the "anti-semitic Church" later twisted it into!

A full answer would be quite long (and probably result in a 'hijacking' accusation -- even from the thread originator ;) ). Vastly abbreviated, however, here are a few comments:

1) "Pharasaizer" is probably a better word, in terms of understanding. Shaul/Paul made a clear distinction (as did Yahushuah, of course) between His "torah" (instruction) and man's so-called "law". (See Gal. 1:6-14. Respectfully, most "evangelical Xtians" simply do not read that confession with comprehension. Shaul rejected the "religiousity" of those who - like he once was - were "judaizers". He rejected what they CALLED "law". He did NOT reject the 'torah' of His Savior...Whom he recognized as the 'Torah Made Flesh'. Sadly, the Greek word "nomos" is ambiguous - a lot like the word 'judaizing' now is.)

I am no more a "rabbinic jew" than I am a Catholic. Both of those 'religions' have rejected what is Written, in favor of adding VOLUMES of their own so-called "laws" and traditions...and BOTH hold their law to be superior to the Word of YHVH. (Yes, both explicitly claim that the 'rabbis' and the 'popes' have the so-called authority to overrule the Written Torah, or Bible. The RCC claims, not without some irony, that so-called 'Protestants' who accept Sunday as 'the Lord's Day' in place of His Sabbath obviously accept their authority by 'apostolic succession' as well!)

2) So - anyone who tells me that I must do the 1500+ bogus things that 'judaizers' tell me I MUST DO, or NOT DO, on the Sabbath in order to be "saved" are no less "full of it" than those who tell me what 'sacraments' I must observe, HOW I must be 'baptized', or why I must celebrate various 'holy-days' named for a pagan deity rather than His moedim. All of 'em are prohibited "addition to" or "subtractions from" His Word. If I choose to circumcise my son on the 8th day, or ask my Master to drive an awl through my ear into the mezuzah of His house...it's because "I love my Master", and CHOOSE to, not because some 'priest' told me I have to.

3) Acts 15 is clear, when read in historic context. The "four things" were not an "end goal", but a minimum set of conditions necessary to "clean up" the new gentile converts JUST enough to get 'em in the door of the synagogue...so they could begin to learn the rest of His 'torah' -- every Shabbat (v19-21). It's funny, isn't it, how all of those present understood the point (v 22), and yet most modern 'churches' don't even still teach or understand the four minimum requirements!

Those who would like to deceive themselves into believing the double-minded dispensationalist contradiction that "God did away with" something called 'the law' have some obvious questions to answer-- ESPECIALLY if they claim to believe He still allows polygyny!

- Why keep THAT? If He can magically change pigs from "unclean" to "clean" without actually modifying their bodies or eating habits, why can't he reprogram men to allow them only one wife? If 'the Church' can "change times and seasons", and get rid of His Sabbath, why not His rules for marriage?

- How can people who concede that He changed His mind about SOOO many things, and accepted SOOO many pagan traditions in their place, deny the right of the Church and/or State to do the same for marriage? (What about Romans 13, etc, etc, ad nauseum?)

(The machinations -- the legalism! -- associated with treating Paul's use of words like "idios" and "heautou" as Replacement Law just make the point! He wasn't making 'new law' - simply explaining what is Written to a bunch of gentiles who were still learning 'torah'!)

Yes, I've seen the gyrations to justify the "doctrines of men" for decades now. Such claptrap was why I rejected "mainstream Xtianity" for years...until I started to study for myself, "from the Beginning", and finally understood what the "sermon on the mount" was about. What I had "heard it said" that He taught was not at ALL what was actually Written. Substitute the word "catholicizing" for "judaizing" and see if that helps with the distinction!

My core belief is based on His Word, and to the best extent I am able, His Word alone, as Written. Call it the 'church of NO traditions', if that helps; not 'jewish', not 'Catholic', not 'Mormon', and not 'evangelical Xtian'.

Isn't it easier to accept that what YHVH hates is man's "judaizing" of His Word? After all, He said so hundreds of times.



PS> BTW, I'm happy to 'debate' what His Word actually says any time, Randy. Iron really does sharpen iron, and I respect your opinion and insight. But I'm no longer convinced that BF would allow such a discussion, so I won't go further here. What I said in the Mishpatim teaching should help make the larger points clear: our Master, King, Savior, and Husband gave us plenty of examples.
 
Thanks Mark,

I will not discuss it anymore here - totally understand your thoughts on this matter. However, we can talk off line some at your convenience.
 
BTW, the teaching from LAST week, which precedes this one in Scripture and ends with the revelation of the "Ten Commandments" is here:

http://www.waytozion.org/teachings/Jeff ... gTorah.mp3

It's called "Yithro", after Moses' father-in-law, where that part of the story begins. Again, Jeff teaches first, and then I follow up, with both some additional aspects of the Torah portion, and a tie-in with current events (news) and the connections to a "come out of her" theme.
 
I believe that Biblical Families should allow free discussions, particularly if they desire to remain Biblical.

My two cents.

Curtis
 
I agree. We have no consistency regarding what discussions are allowed and disallowed.

SweetLissa
 
Great points...and obviously I agree as well.

The irony of the fact that BF now talks about "freedom and balance" under the heading "What We Believe" out of one side of the mouth, while stifling even EXPLICIT QUOTATION of Scripture and the Messiah Himself which happens to offend the "powers that [now] be" is more than a little ironic.

It is eerily reflective of a once-Constitutional Republic which pays lip-service to the First Amendment, while undeniably preparing at the same time to control speech...particularly the internet...and putting ever more legislation in place to not only forbid certain teaching from Scripture, but prosecute them as "thought crimes".



The Torah portion called "Mishpatim" (which, again, follows the "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 20, and covers through the end of Exodus chapter 24) is more than just the first place where Scripture explicitly sanctions polygyny, and provides guidance on aspects marriage in the process. It is about PRACTICAL examples of how we are to live as a free people...and what happens when we forget those lessons! Yes, the audio is pretty long, because there's a lot of detail in it. But I believe most here will find it interesting, particularly if they will "be like the Bereans" and study the Scripture for themselves as they listen; "see if these things be True."
 
Fortunately avoiding theological censorship is an easy mid-course correction to make and a tendency that is fairly easy to recognize if the tendency begins to raise it's ugly head again.

Curtis
 
There IS consistency, but it's an art, not a science, and there are different people making the decisions at different times, guys, so the result is what it is.

I'm not going to apologize for attempting to stick to our mission. If you want to debate theology, there are dozens of sites where you can do that. Biblical Families has specifically said that is NOT our purpose. Please reread again, before you reply here, our Forum guidelines that talk about our purpose: http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4, specifically support for Christian newcomers to the idea of plural marriage. We can and do allow some, but when it becomes a 'focus' taking away from those objectives, that's when it's too much for the public forums (hint, hint).

Those of us 'old-timers' who have learned to 'critically examine everything', and hopefully hold on the good (though we don't agree on what that is often, and that's part of the problem), often forget that the messy process of examining everything, in public, is rarely helpful to the newcomer (or anybody, in a written forum). I know, because we hear it from them, and watch them leave over it.

If that bugs you, because you think we are being too 'light', I'm sorry, but you can find a place for some of those debates you want to have elsewhere, where it's more in line with their purpose.

Thanks for understanding,
Nathan
 
DaPastor said:
Hi Mark,

I am not desiring to get into any debate with you, but I do have a question. What is the difference in your mind between your core views and Judaizers?
Click to expand...

The very short answer is that of salvation.

Judaizers wanted a person to convert to Judaism before accepting Jesus. Justification is a one time event.

The issue is that of sanctification. Sanctification is on going in the life of the believer.

Why do I think Christians should follow Torah. WWJD. Then what did Paul do?

We should do the things that G-d has commanded to be done.

The current Christian view (since about 1800) is that the Torah is bad. Today it is a slight anti-Jewish feeling. That said, Israel (the country) has no better friend then the evangelical community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top