What Does Paul Mean when he says "Under the Law" and "Works of the Law" pt. 2

I know that I've already written on this subject. But I believe based off of more reading from Paul in Acts, as well as having done further deeper study on the Dead Sea Scrolls that its important that we understand this matter a little deeper than previously understood before. So lets discuss this further.

Today, unlike what I did beforehand, I'm going to definitively show everyone that Paul is not writing that people should not follow the Torah. If he is presumed to do so after this writing, those who believe this to be the case will see that Paul is nothing more than merely a hypocrite.
We must first define what a prophet is. It is a messenger of God. If Paul is a messenger of God, he must fulfill the definition of this mold. So we shall look first at Deuteronomy 18:20 "20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." What is meant by this? That anybody who speaks against the Torah, must be put to death (since Yeshua came and abolished the death penalty though...we shall think of this as he should simply not be followed). So first off we run into the dilemma. If Paul is speaking against the Torah, against anything that God commands, he is not a prophet. Therefore, he holds no authority to preach the message of God.

Secondly, I'm going to bring up Peter's claims again in 2 Peter 3:15-18 "15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen." Ebionites believe in not following the words of Paul. I don't believe these groups are following incorrectly necessarily. I just think in the realm of Apologetics in seeking to understand the truth, Paul is a very valuable individual who teaches an accurate portrayal of Torah. So I'm here today to declare that I believe this rejection to be in error. I believe Paul was a) well intentioned and b) accurate in his presentations. One does not need to cherry pick scripture or misinterpret it to accept that Paul was promoting the Torah. Lets just take Paul's expression in Acts 21. He demonstrates fully that he is in accordance with the Torah, and shows his deep concern by taking the Nazirite vow. And if we have further doubts, we shall look at Paul's own words. In Acts 24:14 he states "14However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." As if this was not plain as day, Paul states that he agrees with the Torah. Does it make sense for him to believe everything in the Torah, and then turn around and preach against it? Of course not. Because that would be against the Torah in and of itself. Paul also declares again in Acts 25:8 " 8Then Paul made his defense: "I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar." We have already talked about the use of Ha nomos as an expression for the Torah. That terminology is used here (Stern even admits that this is referring to the Torah). Keep in mind, Paul does not talk about not adhering to oral tradition. We're going to get to this in a minute and we'll see why Paul is getting into trouble for making these claims, as they would appear radical to a Jewish follower.

Thirdly, I'm going to bring up what David Stern talks about with the group expressions erega nomou and upo nomoun. These are the terms utilized for "under the law" and "works of the law". They both indicate according to Stern, a graduate from the American Jewish University and Fuller Theological Seminary, a term that denotes a legalistic observance of Torah. Ariel and D'vorah Berkowitz do not clearly define what this is, but they both certainly note that the terms are not an expression of Torah. Finally, Christian author CEB Cranfield, a renowned "New Testament" scholar, agrees 100% with David Stern's expression of these terms by Paul. So the Greek lines up with the statements I'm attempting to draw on.

The final point that I'm going to make is based off of the Sectarian Manifesto. A background research study of the Essenes demonstrates a similarity between this sect's adherence to the Oral tradition (Jews know this as the Oral Torah) and the Pharisees. They both esteemed the oral tradition as equal in power to the Written Torah. We have to take a good look at this expression. I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate that the oral Torah was written prior to when Christians label the Mishnah to have been written. Lets look at what the Sectarian Manifesto declares. "Now, we have written to you some of the "works of the Law", those which we determined woudl be beneficial for you, and your people, because we have seen that you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your council straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel."

Here we see the origin of the source of the wording, "Works of the Law." We see that these particular rabbis were well meaning. Earlier it is even expressed that the Rabbis are writing the Sectarian Manifesto so that you might understand the Law of Moses more clearly. We shall see that in 3 verses (Numbers 15:13-16), I can destroy this presupposition. We are not questioning the motives of the rabbis here. They were good, but misdirected. These types of particular words misguide Gentiles to persuade them to follow the Talmud even to this day.

Heres where we see Paul's concern for understanding the "works of the law" and why he is telling the Gentiles (new believers unacquanted with the difference) not to follow the law. Particularly of importance, it nullifes sacrifices made by Gentiles. In 4Q394 Frags. 3-7 Cols. 1-2 with 4 Q395 Frag 1, it is directed from a legal body of people's that we shall not mixed the holy with the profane. Heres what is defined as holy. The section begins "These are some of our pronouncements [concerning the law of God]; specifically some of the pronouncements concerning works of the law which we have determined and all of them concern defiling mixtures and the purity of the sanctuary." Again, based off of this pronouncement prior to the listing of the provisions, we see these are meant as an extension of God's Torah. The first provision is 1) Ban on offerings using Gentiles grain (Mishnah parah 2:1). "Concerning the offering of the gentile grain that they are..... and allowing their...... to touch it and become defiled. No one should eat from Gentile grain nor bring it into the sanctuary." We saw previously how there was concern over Peter eating with the Gentiles. It wasn't that there was concern over Peter eating nonkosher food with the Gentiles. The detailed complaint was that there was a problem with Peter simply eating with Gentiles. We see this expression not mentioned in the Torah, but it is mentioned in the Oral Talmud.

2) Ban on sin offerings boiled in Gentile vessels. (Mishnah Zebahim 11:6-8). This declares "Concerning the sacrifice of the sin offering that they are boiling in vessels of bronze and thus defiling the flesh of their sacrifices as well as boiling them in the Temple court and defiling it with the broths of their sacrifice." Again, why are Gentile sacrifices being rejected? In part it is a concern over whether or not their food was offered to pagans. But the Gentiles who follow God's word are excluded with all of these provisions as well. And lets not forget what Numbers 15:13-16 states " 13 " 'Everyone who is native-born must do these things in this way when he brings an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 14 For the generations to come, whenever an alien or anyone else living among you presents an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, he must do exactly as you do. 15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD : 16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.' "

THE SAME LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH. Thus saith the Lord.

3. Ban on sacrifices by Gentiles (Mishnah Parah 2:1). "Concerning the Gentile sacrifice, we have determined that they are sacrificing to the....which is like a woman who has fornicated with him."

So what does this mean? Gentile sacrifice becomes a problem based off of the above expression. Why is this a problem? It is a dividing wall of enmity (sound familiar...Ephesians 2:14). Because Gentile sacrifices are revoked by the Oral expressions, this consequently leads to the sin sacrifice of Yeshua not being allocated for the sins of Gentiles. There is a direct separation here. It is not a wonder that Paul had a problem with this provision, as it is not mentioned in the Tanakh ANYWHERE, nor inferred.

4. Ban on eating peace offerings on the 4th day (Leviticus 7:11-18) "Concerning the cereal offering of the sacrifice of well being, they are to set it aside daily. Indeed it is written...that the cereal offering is to be eaten with the fat and the flesh on the day that they are sacrificed. For the sons of the priest are responsibile to take care of this matter so as not to bring guilt upon the people."

Before we jump to the conclusion that this is based directly off of Leviticus 7:11-18, which is often done by Christian readers when reading the Mishnah and Gemara, lets read what Leviticus 7 states. " 11 " 'These are the regulations for the fellowship offering [a] a person may present to the LORD :
12 " 'If he offers it as an expression of thankfulness, then along with this thank offering he is to offer cakes of bread made without yeast and mixed with oil, wafers made without yeast and spread with oil, and cakes of fine flour well-kneaded and mixed with oil. 13 Along with his fellowship offering of thanksgiving he is to present an offering with cakes of bread made with yeast. 14 He is to bring one of each kind as an offering, a contribution to the LORD; it belongs to the priest who sprinkles the blood of the fellowship offerings. 15 The meat of his fellowship offering of thanksgiving must be eaten on the day it is offered; he must leave none of it till morning.
16 " 'If, however, his offering is the result of a vow or is a freewill offering, the sacrifice shall be eaten on the day he offers it, but anything left over may be eaten on the next day. 17 Any meat of the sacrifice left over till the third day must be burned up. 18 If any meat of the fellowship offering is eaten on the third day, it will not be accepted. It will not be credited to the one who offered it, for it is impure; the person who eats any of it will be held responsible."

Nowhere does it declare that the sons of the priests shall take care of this matter in the Torah. This is a freewill offering by the people. It can be done anywhere where the holy of holies or the temple are. But it is not up to the priests to do this, but rather the people. However, we see similar provisions, often made by the Catholic church and the Orthodox church today regarding the "New Testament" especially in the role of intercessory of the priests for sin, or praying to Mary, Peter, Paul, whoever. Again, as my conclusion has been after studying all of the religions that I have, one side has gone all the way to the left with the "Old Testament" the other side has gone all the way to the right with the "New Testament."

5) Ruling on the purity of those who prepare the red heifer (Num 19:2-10; Mishnah Parah 3:7, 4:4 text 58).

Lets again, take a look at what the rabbis declare and what the Torah declares. "Concerning the purity of the heifer of the sin offering, the one who slaughters it, the one who burns it, the one who gathers its ashes, and the one who sprinkles the water of purification-for all of these, the sun must set for them to be pure- so that the pure might sprinkle the water of purification on the unclean. For the sons of Aaron are responsible to take care for this matter."

Sounds pretty close. But there is a certain discrepancy. Numbers 19:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: 2 "This is a requirement of the law that the LORD has commanded: Tell the Israelites to bring you a red heifer without defect or blemish and that has never been under a yoke. 3 Give it to Eleazar the priest; it is to be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence. 4 Then Eleazar the priest is to take some of its blood on his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting. 5 While he watches, the heifer is to be burned—its hide, flesh, blood and offal. 6 The priest is to take some cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool and throw them onto the burning heifer. 7 After that, the priest must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water. He may then come into the camp, but he will be ceremonially unclean till evening. 8 The man who burns it must also wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he too will be unclean till evening.
9 "A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and put them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. They shall be kept by the Israelite community for use in the water of cleansing; it is for purification from sin. 10 The man who gathers up the ashes of the heifer must also wash his clothes, and he too will be unclean till evening. This will be a lasting ordinance both for the Israelites and for the aliens living among them.

What is wrong with this? It never declares what time this can be done.......That is an addition to the text (we have already declared the problem with this from Deuteronomy 4:2). It doesn't say anywhere in the Torah that the sun must set for these things to be pure. AGAIN! wake up call. We have got to pay attention to detail when analyzing these texts so we do not make mistakes.

Lets take a look at some more passages, not consistent with Torah from the Dead Sea Scrolls. I can assure you after going through the entire Sectarian Manifesto, discrepancies as the above have been pointed to my attention. There are in all about 30 of these same provisions that serve to either a) add on to the text in a similar manner that the early church fathers of the Christian flavor added to the text or b) directly oppose the Torah. I want to mention these next two as primarily a wake up call to the Christian community.

10. Ruling on place of sacrifice (Leviticus 17:3-9; Temple Scroll, text 155, 52:13-21). "Concerning that which it is written: anyone who slaughters in the camp or outside the camp an ox, a lamb or a goat for...to the north of the camp. We have determined that the sanctuary is the "tabernacle of the tent of meeting" that Jerusalem is the "camp" and that outside the camp is "outside of Jerusalem" in other words the "camp of their cities." Outside the camp...the sin offering and they take out the ashes of the altar and burn the sin offering there. For Jerusalem is the place that he chose from all the tribes of Israel to make His name to dwell...Concerning the...which they are not sacrificing in the sanctuary."

Again, this is problematic. Its obvious in this context, they are talking about physical Jerusalem. Thanks to the traditions of the elders, it is now impossible for the Gentiles to be cleansed of sin...but also impossible for Jews outside of Jerusalem to be cleansed of sin. In other words, even the ones who were scattered abroad during this time period become condemned. Again, the provisions for making a sacrifice are in the temple (now our bodies) and the holy of holies (ark of the covenant). Nowhere else in the Torah is anything else decreed. And this is inconsistent with this expression. Why? Because the holy of holies has the physical capacity to leave Jerusalem (those taking notes with an interest in Eschatology, take note. We are going to see the problematic expression later when in an article I'm writing for somebody else against Preterism soon, that both Preteristic and Futuristic expression of Eschatology have problems). They are right to infer that Jerusalem holds a special place to God, but not right in their declaration of definition for what the "camp" is.

Lets again, take a look at what Leviticus 17:3-9 says "3 Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox, [a] a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside of it 4 instead of bringing it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD -that man shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood and must be cut off from his people. 5 This is so the Israelites will bring to the LORD the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the LORD, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings. [b] 6 The priest is to sprinkle the blood against the altar of the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and burn the fat as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols [c] to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.'
8 "Say to them: 'Any Israelite or any alien living among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9 and does not bring it to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to the LORD -that man must be cut off from his people."
First of all, this demonstrates a contradiction within the "works of the law" in and of itself. Based off of their own citation, Gentiles may offer a burnt offering or sacrifice.
Secondly, this would be especially problematic today as the definition of the Essenes presents an unnecessary burden. Solomon's temple was destroyed, and God ceased to accept sacrifices from the temple for the last 40 years anyways. The proper expression, as expressed by Yeshua, is that our bodies are now the dwelling place of the Lord. So, in effect, we are the actual physical temple (our bodies) as it stands today. Thus, the works of the Law become a hindrance to us, Christians and Messianics, just as they were to the Orthodox Jews after Yeshua's death. Again, we can see why Paul's concern would be expressed.

13. Ban on the inclusion of unfit into the congregation of Israel (Deuteronomy 23:1-4, mishnah Yebamoth 8:2-3)
"Concerning the Ammonite, the Moabite, the bastard, the one whose testicles are crushed, or whose penis is cut off who enter the congregation...and take wives, that they might become one flesh and entering the sanctuary...unclean we have also determined that there is not one must not have intercourse with them and one must not unite with them so as to make them one flesh and one must not bring them into the sanctuary...and you know that some of the people and are uniting. For all the sons of Israel are responsible to guard themselves against any defiling union and to show reverence for the Sanctuary."

Remember, Christians, in the book of Acts where Paul was taking so much heat for being accused of bringing Trophimus (oddly not Luke...we saw why in a previous article) into the temple? Here we see the provision laid out and why it was a problem. We need to take a view of the information not consistent with scripture again. It doesn't say that there can not be intermarriage between a Jew and a nonJew in the Bible. It merely states that anyone unequally yoked should not marry. We see a further problem with the above information. Where is the information in Deuteronomy 23:1-4 about the Ammonites or the Moabites? It doesn't say they cannot marry, just that they may not enter the assembly of the Lord. (Construction of a picture of the first temple would be of benefit here to show the court of the Gentiles. This didn't exist in Solomon's temple, leading to some problems that Jews felt they needed to address with the oral traditions). All Deuteronomy 23:1 is in reference to is someone not being able to marry when they are deformed (in the physical sense). Deuteronomy 23:1-4 " 1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.
2 No one born of a forbidden marriage [a] nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation.
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim [b] to pronounce a curse on you."

Another problem, it states that this curse goes down to the tenth generation. It doesn't say "for the generations to come." If it did it would mean forever. This provision from the "works of the law" allows for the extermination of people within God's creation (no better than the Hitler provisions, or Martin Luther's claim to burn down the synagogues).

We will touch base on more of this information later. This is a good starting point I believe to end for the time being. I am praying that Christians can further see the problems with the "works of the law" as described by Paul. Let us throw away hellenization, but not to the point we turn too far into the Jewish manmade traditions. We shall not go to the right or the left, but stay in the center, abiding only by the word of God.