So I'm working on a full response to the article. I haven't had enough time to get through it, but here is where I'm at. Quotes are from the article.
"Several streams teach such views, including Ephraimite groups that believe that Gentiles who have come to faith in Yeshua in some way fulfill the prophecies concerning the regathering of the Northern Tribes and their reunion with Judah. Generally, they teach that all believers are called to follow the same Torah instructions, with the exception of circumcision.
Other groups teach that Gentiles are both called to live the same Torah as Jews (except for circumcision), without teaching that they are in any way descended from the so-called “lost tribes” of Israel. These groups see all believers as grafted into the Olive tree, and therefore called to obey the same Torah as Israel. Perhaps the best-known proponents of this view are the writers of First Fruits of Zion, including Tim Hegg."
The authors touch on a major point here, yet they don't acknowledge what it means, let alone refute it. The northern kingdom (Israel) was scattered, but never regathered. At least not in any significant way. Ephraim was prophesied to become many great nations (Genesis 48:19:20), but we can't firmly identify which ones. Without knowing for sure if you are a descendant of Israel, you can either err on the side of being disobedient, or on the side of being obedient. It is a dilemma with two laws, but a non-issue with one Torah.
The authors take a quick view of some basic theological standpoints and come to this:
"One Law people would see the deficiency in this sort of theology. If Israel has not been replaced, but is still the covenant people of God, then the division of the Torah into an easy moral/ceremonial dyad cannot be sustained. For example, the festivals not only involved sacrifices, but also are memorials of the history of God’s grace and deliverance in the life of Israel, and the fulfillment of his promises to Abraham. Because of these non-sacrificial aspects of the festivals, they must still have validity. Indeed, why isn’t the entire Torah still valid where it does not depend on the presence of the Temple sacrificial system?
These issues and questions could serve as a healthy balance to some of the traditional teaching of the churches. But One Law teachers take another, crucial, step, which brings them into error. They argue that since Gentiles are grafted into the Olive Tree of Israel, both Jew and Gentile are now called to keep the same Law (except for circumcision). They would apply the Law in the same way to both groups, so that Gentiles in the Messiah are to keep the Sabbath, festivals, food laws, and much else that has not been common in Christian practice."
The authors rightly point out that the Torah is not quickly carved up into easy sections. They focus on “the festivals”. It does create issues and questions. The authors seek a healthy balance, yet simple obedience isn't seen as healthy, but an error. The appointed times have a significance in a memorial, and prophetic way. God says they are His (Leviticus 23:2), therefore they don't belong to the Jews. Certainly observing these wonderful events are very beneficial, if not critical, to a believer. Certainly that would be good way to show love and respect to The Creator. So why not? The deep answer is that it “has not been common in Christian practice.” Good enough for some, but it sounds more like people sticking with the broad path that Yeshua warned to avoid.
"Acts 15 specifically declares that nothing should be required of the Gentiles but four laws, three of them related to blood."
This statement is left unqualified and is completely absurd. No doubt these teachers tell believers what they ought to do based on Paul's letters. If only 4 commandments are given to Gentiles for all time, why would Paul, or anyone else bother with letters? Why bother with preaching? James CLEARLY gives the context as those who are coming, present tense, to The Father. The idea that those coming to a Christian or Jewish synagogue needing to have a certain level of morality is not at all foreign. In 1 Cor. 5 we see: “
9I wrote to you in my letter to have no company with sexual sinners;
10yet not at all meaning with the sexual sinners of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then you would have to leave the world.
11But as it is, I wrote to you not to associate with anyone who is called a brother who is a sexual sinner, or covetous, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. Don't even eat with such a person.
12For what have I to do with also judging those who are outside? Don't you judge those who are within?”
"As has been noted, these are very similar to the Noahide laws. This does not mean that Gentiles are free to murder, steal, and dishonor their parents. The passage assumes a universal morality, as do Paul, Peter, and James (who were present that day), and John in their writings. As Romans 2 notes, Gentiles can perceive the law of God, even without the revelation of Moses, and are responsible for many standards that are also expressed in the Bible. For example, classic Roman moral law taught the ideals of monogamous marriage, honoring parents, honesty and much more. The essential and unique addition of New Covenant ethics is the sacrificial example of Yeshua.
Acts 15 clearly addresses issues beyond basic morality, issues that would not have been readily perceived in the Roman world. These added requirements were also necessary for Jewish-Gentile fellowship. Acts 15 emphasizes reverence for blood (which is reverence for life), a standard that goes back to Noah. Meat strangled has far too much blood in it. Roman ethicists rejected fornication, but an exception was made for cult prostitution. Idolatry was indeed the way of life in the Roman world and was part of good citizenship. In this command, the Gentile believer had to make a radical break with Roman culture.
One Law teachers make a big point of James’s statement that “Moses has been read every week in the Synagogue” (Acts 15:21). This is taken to imply that Gentile believers will, in the normal course of their new life, attend synagogue and adopt more and more of the whole Torah. Since Torah life is good and beautiful, why wouldn’t he? On this basis, the verse is taken as an exhortation to further learning and the adoption of the whole Torah. Thus, One Law teachers transform an ambiguous statement into a strong and unambiguous exhortation."
The authors make in incredible case here that Roman culture contained all the morality that a person would ever need. It's incredible in how foolish it is. Forget the Colosseum, gladiators, Nero, or the infamous Roman orgies. Forget ROMANS 1. Again what is the purpose of epistles and preaching if everything outside the 4 laws was already covered?
There are only three ways we can look at James' statement in regards to the weekly Torah reading: positive, negative, or he was stoned out of his gourd and what he said has nothing to do with anything. It seems the authors chose the last option, as they offer no opinion as to what the statement means. They certainly can't argue the hearing the Torah is a negative thing. If they recognize that it is a positive statement, then it can only be placed in the context of new Gentile believers coming to hear it. But that is the correct one, and the intent was certainly for Gentiles to learn from the Torah.
"They apparently overlook, however, the fact that these words spoken in the council were not included in the apostolic letter that was circulated among the congregations. If this were such a crucial exhortation to Gentiles, it is amazing indeed that the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, did not think it important enough to put in their letter!
It is most telling that in all the epistles to congregations there is not a single word commanding Gentiles to adopt the whole Torah, and no direct statement of hope that they will eventually adopt a fully Torah- keeping life in the same way as the Jews. There is no word of such an exhortation or even mild encouragement throughout the whole book of Acts, which is written in part to show the relationship of Jewish-Gentile fellowship!
Even were we to say that Gentiles are free to embrace Torah, the calendar of Israel, and more, there is no word that there is any covenant responsibility for Gentiles to do so. Acts 21 reinforces this impression. Here James tells Paul of the rumor that he teaches Jews who embrace Yeshua to forsake Torah. This of course is not true. So, Paul demonstrates this to be a false rumor by his Temple involvement. James reminds Paul that Gentiles were freed from responsibility for the full weight of Torah. Neither Paul nor James gives the slightest hint that they were encouraging full Torah observance among Gentiles. Paul could have said, “Not only do I not teach Jews to forsake Moses, but I even encourage Gentiles to embrace more and more of the Torah as they come to understand and appreciate it.” This is the emphasis of the One Law teachers, but there is not one word in the New Testament that explicitly encourages Gentiles to grow in keeping the whole Torah."
Due to the completely un-Biblical position that the Roman Empire was a perfect embodiment of morality, the authors assume that citing the Torah as the standard for morality would be necessary. The apostles certainly wouldn't have shared this view. The converting Gentiles would go to the synagogue and hear the scriptures read because that's what the Christians did. A worshiper of Athena would go to the temple of Athena. A worshiper of Justin Bieber goes to his concert. A Muslim goes to a mosque. You get the idea. It is what they were signing up for for. It's what they wanted. They couldn't watch it on TV. There didn't have to be a commandment for it.
"With the coming of the New Covenant, there is a change of relationship between the circumcised and the uncircumcised. Since the New Testament teaches specifically on the relationship of Jew and Gentile in the new reality of the body of believers, we cannot simply transfer the practices of pre-Yeshua times into the New Covenant period."
The authors don't believe that ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine... just the ones they like. The entire TaNaK is completely swept under the rug with no justification whatsoever. This isn't surprising because there isn't any justification for such a terrible error.
"Yeshua in Matthew 5:17-18 teaches obedience to the least of the commandments. He was speaking to Jews in period when the Temple was still standing and it was possible to keep the Torah to a much greater degree than now. To teach people to obey the least of the commandments, however, assumes that they keep them according to the intent of the commandment. It does not mean that Gentiles should be taught to keep all the details of law given to Israelites."
There is deceptive tactic here. They are drawing your attention to an incomplete portion of Scripture. By omitting verse 19, they hope to avoid an obvious conflict with their dispensational conclusion. The passage reads:
17"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.
19Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.”
There are two things here the authors hope to avoid. The first is that those who will be called greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven will both obey and teach the Torah. If Gentiles do not adhere to this, they will not be among the greatest in the Kingdom. It is clearly a Kingdom issue that transcends national differences. The second is the implications of the fact the Yeshua sees the righteousness of the Rabbis as severely lacking. This is a problem considering that Judaism plainly states that that the Mishnah, a foundational document of Jewish practice, is derived from the Rabbis of this period. Towards the end of the article you will see why the authors want to avoid offending Orthodox Judaism.
"Galatians 5 is a watershed passage. Here Paul in the strongest terms exhorts Gentiles not to receive circumcision. Some One Law teachers want to allow a legitimate option of circumcision, so they add the proviso that it should not be done for the wrong reasons. Yet, this is not in the text. The New Covenant offers the fullness of God’s blessing upon Gentiles without the necessity of circumcision. This was not the case in the Mosaic order.
When Paul writes, “Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law” (v.3), it is impossible to escape the implications of this verse. If one is circumcised, he is obligated to keep the whole law; if one is not circumcised, he is not obligated to obey the whole law. Paul’s statement would make no sense if Gentiles were already obligated to keep the whole law! Again, there is no qualification here. Paul does not write, “of course, I would like you to be able to keep the whole law as I do, but this should be gradual as you understand and not by the requirement that would come from circumcision.” This is exactly the kind of qualification that Paul does make for celibacy in I Cor. 7. But he does not make it here concerning the law."
The authors, again, are not honest with this portion of text. The full portion reads:
"1Stand firm therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and don't be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
2Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3Yes, I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4You are alienated from Christ, you who desire to be justified by the law. You have fallen away from grace.
5For we, through the Spirit, by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision amounts to anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love.”
First of all, Paul says don't be entangled AGAIN with a yoke of bondage. Are we really supposed to believe they were entangled with Torah observance before? Also if Paul refers to Torah as a yoke of bondage, it is blasphemy. Torah is life and blessing! (Deut. 30:11-20) Next up Paul doesn't just say that this circumcision obligates one to obey the whole law, he says it will cut them off from the Messiah! They will be damned for doing so. There is no way that Paul can be referring to keeping Torah according to the teaching of our Messiah.
"Finally, let us look at Colossians 2. Here we are told that no one is to be allowed to judge the Colossians for practices concerning food or drink, a new moon or a Sabbath, or special feast days. These are a shadow; the substance is the Messiah. The clear and plain meaning of the text is that no one is to judge them as to whether or not they observe these days. In an Oscar-winning performance, some One Law teachers twist this text into an exhortation to the Colossians to keep these practices so well that no one would be able to judge them!"
I'm not going to win any Oscars, I'm just going to check the context in Colossians 2:
“Be careful that you don't let anyone rob you through his
philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men,
after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.
9For in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily,
10and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power;
11in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;
12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13You were dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh. He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
14wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;
15having stripped the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16Let no one therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day,
17which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's.
18Let no one rob you of your prize by
a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels,
dwelling in the things which he has not seen,
vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19and not holding firmly to the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together through the joints and ligaments, grows with God's growth.
20If you died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to
ordinances, 21"Don't handle, nor taste, nor touch"22(all of which perish with use),
according to the precepts and doctrines of men?
23Which things indeed appear like wisdom in
self-imposed worship, and humility, and severity to the body; but
aren't of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.”
Anyone who is paying attention can see from the bolded text that this has NOTHING to do with the Torah or Judaism. The people who are judging are angel worshiping philosophers relying on traditions of men, elements of the world, voluntary humility, and a puffed up fleshly mind. Their ordinances are according to the precepts and doctrines or men... NOT TORAH!Scholars knowingly and deliberately twist this passage because they NEED to. If we put the context correctly on lawless pagans, then this passage absolutely proves that the Colossians were eating and drinking according to Torah. They were observing Feast Days. They were observing New Moons. They were keeping Sabbath.
"One of the serious problems with One Law interpretation is that it seems to ignore the awesome change that has come through the death and resurrection of Yeshua. The eschatological Kingdom has come and Gentiles are invited into full spiritual participation without the pre-Yeshua requirements. The spiritual equality of Jew and Gentile in the Messiah is a monumental change. The Gentile in the New Covenant has a far better status than the uncircumcised alien and even the pre-Yeshua Jew, because he that is least in the Kingdom is greater (in privilege) than John the Immerser. He is even raised with Messiah and spiritually present with Him at the throne of God (Eph. 2:5). There is no higher status."
Again the authors offer no proof of some “awesome change”, it is just an assumption based on flawed interpretation. They say, “There is no higher status.” Yet they will will go on to assert that one law for mankind usurps the Jews of their higher status.
"If such a Gentile is called into the Messianic Jewish community and its Torah-based way of life, on behalf of the restoration of Israel, he or she is worthy of honor. But the distinctive way of life mandated in the Torah for Israel is not presented as the ideal for all peoples."
This paragraph is quite interesting. If we follow the authors' interpretation of Galatians 5, then these people they claim are worthy of honor, are actually going to hell. This is important to mention, because it shows just how inconsistent in interpretation you have to be when concocting or defending false doctrine.
