ACD Hebrew Roots Feature

If one views “The Church” in the largest perspective, one sees no consistency of teaching – only a mess of disparate doctrines, conflicting traditions, and competing authorities. How did this chaotic situation come into being?

by Brian Knowles

o the average person on the global street, the word “Church” conjures up a multitude of images, most of them institutional. It could mean the largest Christian entity: the Roman Catholic Church headquartered at the Vatican, in Rome. For others, it could mean the Russian or Greek Orthodox Churches. Still others would see it as one of the numerous branches of Protestantism. Smaller numbers might view “The Church” as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) or as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists or the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist. Some would say the true Church was The Church of God, Seventh Day. An even smaller group would identify it with any one of the now more than 400 splinter groups that now constitute the pod of churches spun off from the parent Worldwide Church of God. (The parent organization has adopted a Protestant, Evangelical theology.)

            When it comes to doctrine (teaching), all of these Christian church organizations and denominations are all over the map. You could pick any given subject and find a zillion variations on the theme. There is no consistency of teaching. Yet, many of these groups identify themselves as the “true” Church on the basis of their doctrinal distinctives. However when one rigorously compares what the churches of today teach and practice with the understandings of the original believing community, one sees significant disparities. The body of doctrine that has grown up in the centuries since the death of the original apostles is largely post-Biblical. Many of the teachings taught by all of the above mentioned church bodies are simply not found in the New Testament.

            Jewish roots scholar Dr. Roy Blizzard writes, “By the fifth century, the Church to the West had so completely severed itself from its Jewish roots and the historical foundations of faith that the Church from the fifth century onward becomes little more than a shell of the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Yavo Digest, Vol. III, No. 1, p. 19).

            It is possible, once one has established what the original Christians believed and practiced, to trace the history of doctrine down through the ages to the present time. It’s tedious work of course; but the records are there for all to read and consider. Let’s ask of the New Testament documents some pertinent questions, and then note the differences between some of those ancient beliefs and a few modern doctrines. Once we’ve gotten that far we can then question how some of these modern, post-Biblical doctrines came into being.

What did they believe?

Let’s begin with the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine is almost universally held to be the mark of orthodoxy throughout the Christian Church. Those who do not accept it are viewed as heretics. Only a small handful of backwater cults do not believe in the Trinity doctrine. Yet where in the Bible, and especially the New Testament, do we find the doctrine of the Trinity? If you have a Strong’s Concordance, which contains every word in the Bible, get it and look up the word “Trinity.” You won’t find it. It’s not a New Testament doctrine. Where did it come from? Why is it viewed by millions as the very soul of orthodoxy?

            How about the doctrine of “original sin”? This teaching says that following the fall of Adam, every person born has inherited a universal sinfulness. In other words, we are born with built-in sin and we therefore stand in need of redemption from the moment we draw our first breath. This explains the Catholic teaching that infants must be baptized. The doctrine of original sin is not found in the Old Testament. It does appear in the Old Testament Apocrypha, included in the Catholic Bible, but not in many Protestant versions of the Bible. It has no explicit expression in the New Testament (though some would disagree).

            Consider the early church’s practice on tithing. Where in the New Testament does one find any commandment of the apostles for Christians to set aside the tithe to support their ministry? Where in the entire Bible do we find any commandment (mitzvah) that commands tithing of anyone but Israelites, and then only to the Temple, priests and Levites? Where is tithing commanded of Israelites outside of the land (eretz Yisrael)?

Which hill to die on?  

Time and space do not permit the listing of the myriad doctrines commonly taught in churches today that are not found in the New Testament. One could work one’s way through the thousands of Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and cultic teachings and find that many, if not most, of them are not contained in the Bible. Each one would require a treatment involving rigorous textual exegesis followed by an in-depth study of the history of doctrinal development throughout the millennia of ecclesiastical history. That task is simply too daunting for this writer. It would be massively encyclopedic. As they say, you have to pick which hill you’re willing to die on. Suffice it to say that the historical Church, in all of its manifestations, departed in many ways from the purity and simplicity of original, apostolic doctrine. The confused mess that is today’s doctrinal picture has a long, politicized, and anti-Jewish history. As the original Jewish leadership of the New Testament community died out, it was replaced by Greek and Latin gentiles who eventually sought to eliminate from the Church all things Jewish.

The Reformation of Doctrine

When we come to understand the anti-Judaic foundation of the Patristic period, we will find the explanation for two things: 1) Why the formation of post-New Testament doctrine took the path it did and 2) Why modern Christian doctrines often differ so dramatically from early Christian teaching and practice.

            When it comes to the formation of doctrine, or even the confirmation of it, what is important is the Biblical text. As Dan Gruber writes, “It is the Biblical text itself that deserves diligent study and accurate handling. When the text itself is studied, it becomes readily apparent that some traditional teachings do not come from the text. They are simply the traditions of men, standing in opposition to God and his purposes.

            “Tradition has value, but there are historical reasons why tradition strays from the Biblical truth. For those who accept the Bible at face value, believing it to be the Word of God, what it teaches is the core of our existence. It is our life, not simply material for proving our points, supporting our prejudices, or confirming our traditions. We want to know what it teaches, because that is what determines how we choose the live our lives” (The Church and the Jews by Dan Gruber, p. ix).

            No Christian should be viewed as a heretic simply because he or she disbelieves a post-Biblical doctrine of the Church – any church. The well-spring of right doctrine lies, not even in translation, but in the text of the Bible itself.

The effects of complexity and subjectivity

Doctrine and dogma, down through the centuries of ecclesiastical history, have become so complex that the average Christian could never in one lifetime comprehend the whole megillah. Nor could the average minister adequately explain the nuances of tens of thousands of denominational distinctions. Scholars are themselves divided and subdivided into a myriad of specialties. The Christian doctrinal world is an incomprehensible maze of ideas, philosophies, doctrines, dogmas, orthodoxies, expositions, heresies and just plain confusion.

            In contrast, Jesus said, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest for your souls, for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:29-30). 

            Jesus’ teachings are not that complicated. Much of what he taught is easily comprehended, once you understand its Jewishness. Jesus was a Jew. He taught fellow Jews in the Hebrew language. Many of his teachings were not unlike those of the sect of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-2). One can find teachings in the Mishnah (Oral Law of the Jews) that are almost identical to those of Jesus.

            In diagnosing the problem with churches today, Dr. Roy Blizzard, a noted Biblical scholar, attributes it to three things: immaturity, tradition, and ignorance. He writes: “Unfortunately, much of what we believe today is based on tradition, not upon fact or truth. Much of that tradition has arisen over the centuries from a basic misunderstanding of the Biblical text, an inability to interpret the text, due in large part to a lack of knowledge of the original languages of the biblical text, especially – surprise, surprise – Hebrew” (Yavo Digest, January 1996, p. 9).

            In modern Christian life, much is purely subjective. Christians have their “b’leefs” and those are based largely upon gut feelings and emotion. They are drawn to various charismatic leaders, evangelists and ecclesiastical showmen. Once drawn, they uncritically fold into the group with its doctrines, ideas, traditions and practices. As Dr. Blizzard points out, “Christianity has never really placed any serious emphasis upon study. Throughout much of its history, emphasis has been placed upon emotion, feeling, or revelation. And we wonder why there are some four hundred warring denominations, each declaring they have the truth. The truth is that most all are far from it. The basic foundational reason again is lack of knowledge. It is lack of knowledge that results in immature behavior and immature or unsound principles and/or doctrines.” (Yavo Digest, January 1996, p. 10, emphasis mine)     

            Not only did Jesus teach that his yoke was easy and his burden light, he said that “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32). Truth, if it really is truth, does not bring us into bondage, it frees us. Why then have Christians down through the ages made Christianity such a burdensome thing?

Building fences around fences

The fact is, Christians have done essentially the same thing the zealous Jews of Jesus’ day and beyond did. In those days, there was a belief in Judaism that it was necessary to “build a fence around Torah.” In principle, this was a good idea. In practice, it got out of hand. The net result was what Jesus described when he said of the scribes and Pharisees, “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them upon men’s shoulders…” (Matthew 23:4). What were these burdens? Were they commandments of God? Not at all. They were additional commandments designed to build a fence around Torah. They were traditions that went well beyond the requirements of Torah. Note for example Mark 7:1-8. Here we see a discussion of the Pharisees and scribe’s custom of hand washing before eating. Their custom is explained in verse 3: “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.” The term “tradition of the elders” often indicates the Oral Law, or Mishnah. The Pharisee was rebuking Jesus for failure to teach his followers to adhere to this tradition.

            Yeshua, responding to the Pharisees, says, “…Well hath Esaias [Isaiah] prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoreth me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

            “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7: 6-7).

            Messianic Jews Ariel and D’vorah Berkowitz explain this statement of Jesus as follows: “Yeshua found no problem with the teachings of the Oral Torah when they provided insights or explanations that were true and accurate to the written Torah. However, there were times when the oral Torah was granted authority to – and even superseding – that of the written. When this happened, Yeshua proclaimed the oral Torah to be merely the teachings of men, not of God. In issuing such a rebuke, He was also stating that He did not consider the oral Torah to be authoritative for the man of God, the man of Torah” (Torah Rediscovered, p. 105).

The Church adds burdens

In effect, the Christian Church down through the centuries has added its own set of “heavy burdens, grievous to be born.” A vast and weighty mountain of post-New Testament doctrines and liturgical acts has been added to the simple teachings of Jesus the Messiah. These doctrines have often been created out of a spirit of anti-Judaism, and in an effort to politicize the Church and bring its members under tight ecclesiastical control. For the average Church member, the mountain of doctrine and dogma is virtually impenetrable. It can only be explained by “experts” – learned theologians or ecclesiastical authority figures.

            Already, in the middle of the first century, the apostle Paul was expressing concern about some Christians complicating the truth of Christ: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (II Corinthians 11:3).

            Truth sets us free; it does not bring us into bondage. Jesus’ yoke was easy, his burden light, and his way simple to be understood. Why then do we see such burdensome complexity when it comes to Christian doctrine and dogma?

Not leaving well enough alone

Let’s face it: we humans can’t leave well enough alone. We have to “fiddle” with things. Contrast, for example, the issues of government and law from the time of the founding fathers of this country to the present day. Compare the first IRS code with the current one. Much of this “complexifying” is motivated out a need of some to control others. This was the case in the post-New Testament Church. Once the Christian faith was brought under the controlling yoke of Rome, all doctrine was politicized. During one period, the Bible itself was actually placed on a banned book list. If one wished to access doctrine, one had to go through a local priest or a member of the Magisterium (Church hierarchy). Doctrine had already been severed from its Jewish roots, then Hellenized and intellectualized under the earlier Church fathers, especially the Greek ones. Now it was irreversibly politicized.

            In the verse quoted above (II Corinthians 11:3), Paul seems to suggest that Satan himself is behind this drive to move the church from simplicity to complexity. That would make sense, because the more complex and incomprehensible something is, the less people will be drawn to it – and the more authority figures will be needed to interpret it. It’s simply too daunting for us “ordinary” folks to deal with. How many average church members, or ministers, feel that they have the wherewithal to sort out the endless doctrinal controversies and disagreements that beset the larger Church?

            Theology – “reasoned discourse about God” – is virtually incomprehensible to the average church member. Those with a more intellectual bent may be able to apprehend some of it. But how many of us are able to plumb the depths of Barth, Brunner, Niebuhr, Tillich, Bultmann, Cullman or Kierkegaard?

Jesus cuts to the chase

When asked by a Pharisee, “Master, which is the great commandment of the law [Torah]?” Jesus cut to the chase:

            “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind [Hebrew – “might”]

            “This is the first and great commandment.

            “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

            “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40).

            The “law and the prophets” is a shorthand way of referring to what we Christians erroneously call “The Old Testament.” To Jews it is the TaNaKh – an acronym taken from the three words that describe the three sections of the Bible: Torah = law or instruction, Nevi’im = Prophets and Ketuvim = Writings. To say “the law and the prophets” was to say “The Bible.” In Jesus’ day, the documents that now comprise the New Covenant writings had yet to be produced.

            Jesus’ teaching was simple. He taught that the whole Bible was about how to love God and neighbor. That’s the essence of what it means to be a person of God. It isn’t about creating complex doctrines, dogmas, liturgies, organizations, programs, and litmus tests of orthodoxy. It’s above love concretely expressed in two directions.

            The nation of Israel was given a special calling by God to be a light to the nations, a collective priest to God, and an exemplary people. To aid them in accomplishing their divinely appointed task, God gave them Torah (the word means “Instruction” or “Direction” not “Law”). Torah contained wisdom and some 613 mitzva’ot (commandments). This body of legislation was not given to the goyim, but exclusively to Israel. Much of it was contingent upon Israel’s presence in the land of Israel (eretz Yisrael). In the mid-first century, the apostle Paul wrote, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law [Torah]” (Galatians 5:3).

            A Jew in Paul’s day was under obligation to the whole of Torah, to all of the 613 commandments that applied to his or her situation. This was as true of Christian Jews as it was of non-Christian ones.

            In our time, following the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and the end of the sacrificial system, along with Israel’s general exile from its own country (most Jews today do not live in Israel), Jewish authorities recognize that some 271 of the commandments found in Torah still apply to Jews in all situations. As we noted, this system of laws was never given to the gentiles. Christians are under no obligation to keep the 271 mitzva’ot that apply to the Jewish people today. Nor should they consider themselves to be under the Oral Law of the Jews.

What’s a non-Jew’s obligation?

Some years ago, a reader asked Dr. Roy Blizzard this question: “If a Christian really wants to get back to biblical faith, how important is it to observe Sabbath, dietary instructions, feasts and festivals, etc.? Second, how important is it to live and do Torah?” Dr. Blizzard replied,

            “For the non-Jew, as you say, ‘get back to biblical faith.’ Sabbath-keeping, dietary laws, feasts and festivals were never imposed upon the non-Jew as a matter of law. The non-Jew had the liberty to be as observant as he or she wanted to be. A lot of it has to do with one’s own conscience, what one feels is right for him or her. The problem arises when people attempt to impose their own beliefs off on every else as a matter of fact, or a requirement for fellowship.”

            Dr. Blizzard then added in response to another question:  

            “I think the answer is a very strong YES to your question, ‘Is it not equally important to cast off the pagan doctrines of Hellenistic, Greek, Roman, European, American, and other theologies?’” (Yavo Digest, Vol. IX, No. 3, p.9).

            Throughout the centuries, the Church has collected a mountain of deleterious, unscriptural, baggage. Much of this baggage is purely pagan. The Church has largely forgotten its origins in Judaism. Alexander Solzhenitzyn, the great Russian writer, once said, “To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.” The Church was, early in its history, brutally severed from its Jewish roots, and a strange new hybrid Church was created in its place. As a theological entity, that body has continued to mutate ever since. It’s time to get back to the text of the Bible – both the Hebrew and the Greek, and examine, perhaps for the first time, what the Scriptures really say about the beliefs and practices of the original believing community.

The Noachide Principle

The teachings of the New Covenant writings for non-Jews are essentially the “Noachide” laws writ large. What are these “laws”?

            In ancient times, the Jewish sages considered the issue of what God required of the non-Jews – the gentiles – in terms of law. Based on their exegesis of the first nine chapters of the Bible, they concluded that the goyim should view themselves as “Noachides” – that is, the “children of Noah,” just as Israelites are the “children of Israel.” As such, they were under obligation to observe those things that God had commanded, first the children of Adam, then to Noah and his descendants. From the time of Adam to Noah, the rabbinic sages were able to discern six specific “commandments” (mitzva’ot) to which those gentiles who wish to please God ought to consider themselves obligated. In Noah’s time, a seventh law was added.

Abraham Cohen, writing in Everyman’s Talmud, briefly explains this teaching: “To the Gentiles who were not prepared to enter the fold of Judaism, a moral code, known as the seven commandments of the sons of Noah, was offered. It consisted of the precepts: ‘The practice of equity, prohibitions against blaspheming the Name, idolatry, immorality, bloodshed, robbery, and devouring a limb torn from a live animal’ (Sanh. 56a). By righteous conduct, based upon these fundamental laws, they could earn the divine approval” (p. 65).  

In the above listing, the “practice of equity” refers to having in place a justice system by which the other laws could be administered. The term “immorality” refers to forbidden sex practices including adultery, temple prostitution and homosexual behaviors. In his book The Seven Laws of Noah, Aaron Lichtenstein ties these seven imperatives to some 66 of the mitzva’ot contained in later Mosaic legislation. In each case, these Mosaic commandments amplify the Noachide versions.

Some scholars view the ancient law codes such as that of Hammurabi, the Hittite Code and the Assyrian laws as containing remnants of the earlier Noachide laws. (Those who wish to research this aspect of the Noachide laws can read Philip Biberfeld’s book The Bible and the Ancient Law Codes, Spero Foundation, NY, 1948.)

The rabbinic formulation of the Noachide laws is first found in the Babylonian Talmud (considered more authoritative than the Jerusalem version), Sanhedrin 56a. Other references to it occur in Midrashic sources. (The Midrashim are Jewish commentaries.) It is generally accepted today among Jewish authorities that a “righteous” gentile is a Noachide – one who observes the seven Noachide principles. In New Testament times, such gentiles affiliated themselves with observant Jews in their synagogues on the Sabbath day. They are often referred to as “God-fearers.” Cornelius, the Roman centurion, was such a man (Acts 10:1-2). He practiced “justice,” feared God, and was favorably received by the Jews as a result (Acts 10:22). The apostle Peter, reflecting the Jewish mind on this issue, stated that, “…in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:35). Righteousness, in the context of the Gentiles, meant the Noachide Laws.

To the Jews of Jesus and Peter’s day, the gentiles were divided into two categories: those that feared God and those that did not. The latter were viewed simply as “heathen” or pagans, but the God-fearing gentiles were warmly received in the synagogues of the ancient world. It was from among these God-fearers that many of the first Gentile Christians were drawn (Acts 13:15-16, 26, 42; Romans 1:16).

Initially, there was some confusion among the leaders in the Jewish mother church in Jerusalem as to whether or not the incoming gentiles – many of whom were already God-fearers – should be required to convert to Judaism. Some believed that it was necessary to circumcise the men who were accepting Christ and to compel them to live as Jews – that is, to observe the whole of Torah as did the Jews (this is what is implied by circumcision: Galatians 5:3). The position of this party is described in Acts 15:1: “And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”

Paul and Barnabas, whose primary mission was to the gentiles, vigorously disagreed with the “circumcision party” (Acts 15:2). The Jerusalem church was entirely Jewish, and the Jews that were attached to it were of various persuasions. Included were some Pharisees, many priests, and others. What evolved into what we now call “the Church” was in those days simply a Jewish sect (Acts 24:5). Paul was not the only church member drawn from among the sect of the Pharisees. There were others. Some of these insisted that the incoming gentiles needed to be circumcised and converted to Judaism to be saved: “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). Coming under the Mosaic Law is what circumcision represented in those times, as we have already seen from Galatians 5:3, and now from this verse.

The discussion about what should be required of the believing gentiles generated the creation of the first church council. Scholars believe this council took place in, or around, 49-50 AD – that is, mid-way through the first century. This is before any of the New Testament documents had been written, including Paul’s own writings.

When all of the arguments – pro and con – had been presented, the Holy Spirit led the “apostles, elders and the whole church” to a consensus: The incoming goyim would not be required to convert to Judaism and to observe the Law of Moses. Instead, they could retain their “God-fearer” status and simply conduct themselves as believing “Noachides.” (The text does not of course use the term Noachides, but when we know what this term means, and then we know what kind of people these were.)

James, representing the whole church, summed up its conclusion regarding the gentiles who were coming into fellowship with this Jewish sect: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turning to God: But that we write them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20).

James then added a qualifying statement that showed that if any non-Jew wished to study more deeply into Judaism, he was free, as a God-fearer, to attend any local synagogue (Acts 15:21). Since most Christians could not afford to own a set of Biblical scrolls, to hear them read they had to attend a synagogue. Every Sabbath those attending could hear the reading of the Torah and its accompanying haftara readings (readings from the Prophets).

            The specifics the apostles gave the gentiles were viewed as “necessary things” (Acts 15:28), or, in modern terms, “minimum requirements.” Many scholars believe these necessary things were a representation of what later came to be described as the “Noachide” laws. In his book Yeshua, Dr. Ron Moseley offers the following description of the Noachide system as it relates to non-Jewish Christians:

            “The covenant with the Jews was for them to keep the Law of Moses as a godly life-style, to set them apart from the other nations. The covenant with the believers among the other nations was referred to as the Noachian or Noachide Laws. The Noachide Laws are derived from the moral and spiritual principles established in Genesis 9:4-7, among other texts. These principles instruct mankind to avoid pagan practices and to serve the true God. From ancient times there have been Gentiles who became believers in the one true God and His Messiah and kept only the Noachide Laws rather than the six hundred and thirteen laws of Torah. Examples of those converts who became Noachides include Helena, Queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates. There is also evidence that the powerful wife of Nero, Poppaea Sabina, was a God-fearer who lived by the Noachide Laws. Other references are mentioned by Josephus, the book of Maccabees (from the Apocrypha), and several New Testament texts, such as Acts 13:16 and 10:22.

            “In his book Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Professor David Flusser asserts that these God-fearers accepted certain Jewish obligations, at least the Noachide precepts. Flusser emphasizes that the Noachide precepts were seen only as a minimal condition for Gentiles to be recognized as God-fearers, and that while the mother church decided to lay no greater burden upon the Gentile believers beyond the Noachide precepts, it did not object to their voluntary observance of Torah” (Yeshua, pp. 51-52).

New Testament Principles

In the life of the early church, it was taken as a given that Jewish converts to Jesus would continue to observe Torah as before (Acts 21:20-21). The other Jewish apostles expected Paul to continue to observe Torah (Acts 21:21-25). Paul complied (verse 26). As Dr. Brad Young writes: “…Paul was a Pharisee. He never converted from one religion to another. The Jewish apostle to the Gentiles continued to maintain the beliefs and religious observances of the Pharisees all his life…” (Paul the Jewish Theologian, p. 136).

            At the same time, Paul did not require his gentile converts to become Jews in observance. He viewed them as God-fearers or what later came to be known as Noachides. Dr. Young writes: “Acts 15 explains that the Gentiles will be held responsible for select laws that seem to be an early summary of the commandments for the children of Noah (Acts 15:19-21, 29; 21:25; see b. Sanh. 56a and parallels; and cf. Jub. 7) These moral principles were thought to be universal, while Torah was the treasured gift of God to Israel. The covenant with Israel could not be broken. But the laws for the non-Jews focus on the decisive break they have made with their form idolatrous practices, on a firm belief in the one true God, and on basic teachings for a moral way of life. For Paul, these guidelines for a moral lifestyle were a natural result of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (see Gal. 5),” (Paul the Jewish Theologian, footnote 5, pp. 83-84).

            Dr. Moseley puts it this way: “The laws of Noah are essentially the same as the principles of the New Testament. They required Gentile converts to love their neighbor, avoid sexual sins, avoid pagan rites, avoid idolatry, and worship the one true God. The early Church leaders restated the Noachide Laws in Acts 15:28-29 as the ‘necessary things’ required of the gentile converts” (Yeshua, p. 53).

            When we closely examine the moral teachings of Paul to the gentile churches raised up under his ministry, we do not find him teaching the uniquely Jewish aspects of Torah to his congregants. Yet, when we understand the full amplification of the Noachide precepts, we see clearly that they are in view throughout. Many, if not most, of Paul’s congregations were mixed. They contained both Jews and Gentiles. Paul took for granted that his Jewish converts were living under Torah as it applied to them. Despite the false rumors than had been spread (Acts 21:21), Paul did not teach Jews to abandon Torah in favor of some new “Christian” religion of his own devising.

            Gentiles, who, except for the God-fearers among them, had no background in the Hebrew Scriptures, so they had to be educated in those things that concerned them directly. Paul treated the newly converted gentiles as non-Jewish talmidim, or disciples. He taught the moral aspects of Torah – that is; those precepts that dovetailed with the expanded version of the Noachide laws.

            We do not find Paul explicitly teaching the gentile converts that they must observe the Sabbath, keep the holy days of Israel, tithe, or adhere to the commandments concerning clean and unclean meats. They were free to voluntarily join in with the Messianic Jews in these observances, but there was no “legal” or halachic requirement for keeping them.

            This position of the early Church is not generally understood by modern Christian churches. Consequently, there is much confusion about what is “required” of Christians in terms of law. To add to the confusion, Martin Luther, in his commentary on Romans, further obfuscated the issue with his “law vs. grace” discussion.

            Dr. Brad Young makes the position of the early Jewish apostles clear: “In Jewish thought, all of the commandments of Torah are required of Israel, but the Gentiles are responsible only for its moral demands, which are epitomized in the covenant with Noah and his children. This is basically the position endorsed by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:28-29). Gentiles who have accepted the message of Jesus and want to join the fellowship of the community will be responsible for the moral standard outlined in the Noachic covenant, but they do not have to be circumcised and assume Israel’s entire covenantal responsibilities” (Paul the Jewish Theologian, p. 75).

            While it is deductively clear that the early gentile believers met on the same day their Jewish contemporaries met – the seventh day Sabbath – it is equally clear that there is no command that they observe the day as a legal requirement. Like circumcision, Sabbath observance was a sign of the covenant people, Israel, not of the gentile Noachides (Exodus 31:13). At the same time, we know from history that the first gentile Christians held the Sabbath day in very high regard. For a time, the Sabbath was the only day of regular meeting. Then Sunday observance was added to commemorate the resurrection of Christ. Both days were kept. Finally, Sabbath-keeping was abandoned completely in the spirit of anti-Judaism that had insinuated its way into the now mainly gentile Church. It still makes more Biblical sense for the Church to meet on the seventh day than on the first. This would also make it easier for Jewish believers, who are still under the requirements of Torah, to observe the Sabbath with their non-Jewish brethren.

            Let’s look at it another way: If someone asked me, “Which day is the Biblical Sabbath, Saturday or Sunday?” I’d answer, “The seventh day – Saturday.”

            If a non-Jew asked me to prove to him that he is obligated to observe the seventh day Sabbath as a requirement for salvation or for being in good standing with God, I’d reply, “Sorry, I can’t prove that from the New Testament.”

            If someone else asked me to pastor a congregation, and I felt led to do it, I’d say, “Fine, so long as we can meet on the Sabbath day.” The reason I’d say that is because I am not interested in being “mainstream,” “respectable” or “approved” by established church bodies; I’m only interested in being Biblical. I’m interested in returning to the original understandings and patterns of the early Apostolic Church (cf. Acts 2:42).

Summing Up

The Church today is ensnared in an impenetrable doctrinal mess because its leaders, down through the ages, exercised their free intellectual agency and created that mess. The exercise of free choice has consequences. We are now suffering those consequences. By cutting the Church off from its Jewish roots, the early Church Fathers created a constantly mutating hybrid of an institutional Church whose doctrines are all but inexplicable to non-Christians and to Jews.

            The way out is to return to the Church’s Jewish origins and reexamine the text of the New Covenant documents from that perspective. The text itself will take us back behind the plethora of mistranslations that characterize our English Bibles. The number of mistranslations in the Synoptic Gospels alone is a major problem for the Church’s understandings of its first ancestor’s teachings.

            “The Gospels,” explain David Bivin and Dr. Roy Blizzard, “are rife with mistranslations…had the Church been provided with a proper Hebraic understanding of the words of Jesus, most theological controversies would never have arisen in the first place…Many [mistranslations]…go beyond simple mistranslation and adversely affect our theology” (Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, Jr., p. 67).

            Let me repeat Dr. Blizzard’s statement, quoted earlier: “By the fifth century, the Church to the West had so completely severed itself from its Jewish roots and the historical foundations of the faith that the Church from the fifth century onward becomes little more than a shell of the faith that once for all delivered to the saints” (Yavo Digest, Volume III, No. 1, p. 19).

            And the faith once for all delivered (Jude 3) wasn’t all that complicated. Jesus nailed it when he explained the import of the two great commandments (Matthew 22:34-40). When the apostles gave guidelines for the gentile believers, they taught them how to love God and how to love their fellow man. They taught them moral law. They helped them to gain a sense of Godly justice. They made is plain that the purpose of man is to imitate God in whose image we’re made. Jesus said, “I only do what I see the Father do.” Paul said, “Follow me as I follow Christ.” It’s “monkey see, monkey do.” Whatever God is, we should come to be. If God is loving and merciful, those are traits we should be developing. If he’s kind and forgiving, we should be kind and forgiving. We are called to obedience, and to be light and salt in a world that is full of darkness and moral decay. We have good news for a world that is awash in bad news. When men see how we love each other as brethren, they’ll know that we are disciples of Jesus (John 13:34-35).

            So long as we bicker and argue, disfellowship and mark, attack and counterattack, create “us/them” situations, and refuse to learn, we will continue to mutate, divide, subdivide and add to the general ecclesiastical confusion that’s out there. There’s only one Body of Christ and it transcends human organizations, denominations or evangelistic associations. It is defined by the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13). And it has to do with whether or not we produce the fruit and manifestations of that Spirit. Paul wrote, “If any man hath not the Spirit of God, he is none of his” (Romans 8:9).

            When it comes to doctrine, John also wrote, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (II John 9). Whoever claims to belong to God ought to teach what Christ taught. Jesus asked, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not the things that I say?” (John 6:46).

            Jesus’ teaching – even more than Paul’s -- ought to be central to how the Church behaves itself in the world. It is paramount that we understand his doctrine – his teachings. That includes his parables of which there are between 30 and 50, depending upon how you count them. Jesus taught as an ‘aggadic rabbi. He taught in the Hebrew language to Jewish people. His words must be understood in that context; but he told his disciples to take those words to the farthest corners of the earth. To the best of their ability, they did so.

            It is now the responsibility of the Church to complete the Protestant Reformation and return, not to the anti-Semitic Patristic period, but all the way back to the Apostolic era. The early believers “continued in” the apostle’s teaching (Acts 2:42). We, in our time, need to recapture the purity of that teaching and bring it forward into the modern era as appropriate. The only way to do that is to bypass the mountain of post-New Testament doctrine, tradition and baggage, and return to the Biblical text itself. Understood against its Jewish background, the truth will again emerge into the light of day – and the Church will be better off for it.

            Author’s Note: The seven Noachide categories will be elaborated upon in a separate article entitled: “The Seven Laws of Noah Amplified.”