Another writing against Supersessionism

This will be expanded upon at a later time, but I'd like to demonstrate really quickly what two of my favorite Christian sources say about the Torah. We will look more on what Replacement Theologians state at a later time. James Patrick Holding is a Christian Apologist who has been active for nearly 20 years in Apologetics. He has a cunning approach to riposte and is his points are exceptional in debating against Fundamental Atheism. The one area I find he is weak in is his understanding of the Torah. In his article www.tektonics.org/lp/lawrole.html he comes to the conclusion that the Torah is not for today because as he states in his own words "What of verses that say the law is "for ever"? The word used in the Hebrew is 'olam and means, not exactly forever, but "in perpetuity." This is interesting. When going to the dictionary, what does "in perpetuity" mean? I have an Accounting degree. One form of a cash payment that we studied is known as a perpetuity, or a consol. Its a form of payment with no maturity date and is paid forever. Wikipedia describes it as follows "A perpetuity is an annuity that has no definite end, or a stream of cash payments that continues forever." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetuity According to http://www.investorwords.com/2481/in_perpetuity.html in perpetuity means "forever." According to free dictionary it means "For an indefinite period of time; forever." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perpetuity Mr. Holding should get a better understanding of what in perpetuity means. I would highly recommend we not play with this word.

Dr. Glenn Miller also has the same take on olam. He was approached with the question here "http://www.christian-thinktank.com/finaltorah. "All of this is in direct contrast to the teaching of the New Testament, particularly of Paul and the authors of Hebrews. How can the New Testament teach something contrary to the Hebrew Scriptures and both be inspired and G-d remain immutable?" The simple answer to this question is the only thing that has really changed in the New Testament is that Yeshua's priesthood overtakes the manmade levitical priesthood. That would have been the correct answer. Dr. Miller doesn't reach that conclusion. His opening statement reveals that his issue is with the Torah. "No one [in this paradigm community, remember!] disputes that God's ethical principles of love, fairness, and integrity are part of His eternal character and therefore, ethically normative for creatures of will throughout all the ages. Such principles are inherent within His character, which is--fortunately for us--reliably 'immutable'." Um, so olam means forever here, but not there? The context of the word olam needs to be talked about, not just demonstrating that it can mean a different thing in another context. Prefixes such as ha' and le' or ad' often accomodate the word olam when utilized in the Bible. No, in this paradigm community, we have a problem. This article runs into the problem of the logical fallacy of a double standard. He states that he has found at least 20 examples that olam does not mean forever in the Old Testament. Again, the trap that he falls into is he doesn't fully understand Jewish history and customs. He demonstrates this by calling Yeshua Son of David in another of his articles (while he is that, he never mentions to Jews that he is from the line of David but has not fulfilled the role of Mashiach ben David yet). Further we reach the irony of Dr. Glenn Miller's article in that he is siding with the rabbinical interpretation of the Old Testament! His argument present that the rabbis never interpreted the word olam to mean forever. For instance he lays claim to "Three: Many rabbi's considered vast and important areas of the Law to be annulled or inoperative in the Coming Age. They looked forward to a New Torah, from God through the Messiah, connected sometimes with the New Covenant of Jeremiah (sounds a bit like the NT claims, doesn't it?)" This doesn't make it the case however. And as I've mentioned before, and perhaps Dr. Glenn Miller doesn't know this, the Hebrew word for "New" here is the same that the Jews used for the "renewed moon." More abomination of Jewish customs here - "Obviously the 'as strict as biblical law' (some rabbi's) and 'stricter than biblical law' (Qumran, Jubilees) positions would have a major problem with there being no ark and with non-Israelites being allowed into the priesthood…but that's THEIR interpretive problem (smile)…." When does this ever happen? Non-israelites have never entered into the priesthood. The priest at the current moment is Yeshua. So who in the world is he talking about? The Catholics? Also, he believes that there have been 4 different sets of laws "[This, btw, is one of the main challenges--in my opinion--that later (and modern) followers of "Moses" must face. When it is held that the Law must still be observed, we still must ask the question of 'which version of the Law'? We have--in this simple example of the sanctuary alone--at least four different 'sets of law': Mosaic (ark, tabernacle), Davidic/Solomonic (ark, Temple), Post-exilic (no-ark, Temple--but not built to the same 'revealed' specs as the Solomonic one, though); and Post-NT (no-ark, no-Temple)…It is not enough to say that only the unchanged laws (e.g., diet, Sabbath, festivals?) are to be observed today--this would simply ibe an "admission of guilt"--that (some of) the Law DID change, and that the theological grounding for 'torah immutability' is questionable and/or relative. It is not theologically obvious how one could ever be considered obeying the Law of Moses without a central, earthly sanctuary--even with clever rabbinic hermeneutics, most of which necessarily presuppose a 'change in the surface of the code'. And when you divide the 'surface' (text) from the 'core' (intent/spirit), you immediately fall into the same methodological camp as the early Christians. And, at that point, you're no longer arguing from major theological, structural differences--now you're just 'haggling over details'…] " Really? Does he take into account that these laws have not changed, but only refined? No, the content of the changing of the principles has been completely ignored within this whole writing. He is only utilizing the common ploy of what Replacement Theologians utilize which is that the temple determines whether or not the promises to Israel are to be in place today. The temple is only utilized for certain instances within the Torah, neither having anything to do with the festivals (many which were celebrated in Jewish homes, but could be celebrated at the temple), the Sabbath (what Biblical verse supports the changing of the sabbath based on the falling of the temple? We certainly didn't see this happen with the first fall of the Temple in the Babylonian exile) and kosher law (which again, had nothing to do with the standing of the temple, and is often mentioned by Messianics that even Rav Shaul taught kosher law). What the rabbis state about this is irrelevant. A closer read on rabbinical writings demonstrates that the rabbis believed that God needed to follow the rabbinical commentary, and this demonstrates that there were motives for trying to change the Old Testament that Dr. Glenn Miller has not mentioned in his article. For this reason, one is compelled to take most of what Dr. Glenn Miller says with a grain of salt.

Dr. Glenn Miller doesn't make mention of what we are to turn to if we do not have the Torah. But James Patrick Holding does. He states very directly "If one then happens to ask, "On what basis do you then continue to say that these laws are still valid morally?" -- beyond the "all agree" level of things like murder, and in the category of things like homosexuality and adultery -- " Really, these are all agreed? Seems to me that there is a huge problem with both of these matters even within the church. Secondly, where in the Bible is a democracy stated? God chooses the principles we live by, not man. He continues further "the answer is that when a superior writes a contract, even if you are not a party to it, the contract will still give you an idea what values the superior holds to." So we are under a covenantal relationship that Mr. Holding agrees that we have entered into with God. However, the absurdity can be seen when we take away the covenantal relationship with God, since we are not a party to it anymore. Which covenant do we enter into? If Yeshua is the word, then he becomes the living Torah. Does he then abolish himself? Are we not included into a relationship with God, but then at the same time live by it just because it might make God happy, but we're not exactly sure because it doesn't apply anymore? (how could that be if we are no longer under his contract, wouldn't he be happy that we get rid of these unnecessary habits? Especially if it was a dividing wall as Holding holds Ephesians 2:15 to mean?). What to say of the verses that say that we should worship God forever? Does that mean only a limited time? What about the verses that say God is forever? Does that also mean that he exists for a limited time? Then is God really God? These are some major obstacles that must be faced by Supersessionists, obstacles that can not be overcome. Words have fixed meanings, and one can not apply a definition whenever one feels like it.

The above mentioned gentlemen are very good at giving many arguments. What they both lack is a degree in Ancient Near East Languages. So lets see what someone who does have a degree in ANE languages states. Looking further at someone prominent who has a THOROUGH understanding of Ancient Near East languages (in fact he has obtained a doctorate from New York University), one should take a look at Dr. Michael L. Brown, who in his book Our Hands are Stained with Blood, he takes a look at a few places that utilize the word olam. He makes no question about it, the word means forever in the places that he sites from the Old Testament. I will demonstrate these areas in the days to come, as I quote from his book. He also accurately states that unlike what Dr. Glenn Miller lays claim to, the Orthodox Jewish rabbis have taken claims from the Old Testament out of context time and time again, and have even added different words to the Old Testament to make their claims "more valid." Dr. Glenn Miller may present the rabbis in a light that they were "innocently" doing what they believe was correct, but again, his degree is not concentrated in Jewish studies or in Ancient Near East culture either. Its important to check the background of writers before making a determination of this magnitude regarding the Tanakh.

Lets reiterate what Yeshua states in Mattityahu 5:17-20 "17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." JP Holding and Glenn Miller, you have had some terrific writings in the past that I've admired on various subjects, including the Christ Myth and many other issues too varied to count. Would you join the cause in uniting Jew and Gentile as One New Man, as One in the Body of the Messiah? Let us make sure our knowledge surpasses that of what the Pharisees of our day state in regards to the Torah.