Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usfbobo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!usfbobo!brunson From: brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Law and Christianity Message-ID: <221@usfbobo.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 21:28:41 EST Article-I.D.: usfbobo.221 Posted: Fri Nov 16 21:28:41 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Nov-84 05:23:46 EST Organization: Univ. of South Florida, Tampa Lines: 270 [] One of Yiri Ben-David's main themes is that Christianity is fundamentally anti-Torah and that its anti-Torah posture is likely to lead many to follow the "contra-messiah" when he appears. Those who erroneously believe that Y'shua came to free mankind from the yoke of Torah will likely see no ideological conflict with acceptance of "the man of lawlessness [torah- lessness]" II Thess. 2:3. I would like to approach the problem of explaining this concept from a more intuitive and non-scholarly perspective. I have been a Christian for the past 10 years, most of it spent with various non-denominational Evangelical groups. For a long time now I have felt that there is some organic problem with Christianity. Christianity has a kind of *character defect* which stems from a misunderstanding of the place of Law in the New Testament writings. I would like to explain what I mean by Christ- ianity's *character defect* and point out some of the effects of its anti-Torah posture. My statements are directed to Christians. My intention is not to make unwarranted broadside attacks, to give fuel to the unlearned, or to ridicule (not that I see anything wrong with ridicule, I just don't think it is appropriate for this article). All are free to comment but please refrain from unsolicited hostilities directed at Christians. First of all let me say that I am making distinction between Christians and Christianity. What I mean is that I believe that there are Christians who are not themselves deceived, who are in fact good people living accord- ing to Torah, even though this is not their stated purpose. With respect to Torah observance, the scriptures teach that it is the *doing* of Torah which is important, not so much the *talking* about it. Rather I am addressing myself to that body of tradition, beliefs, interpretations of scripture, known to the world as "Christianity". I am further limiting my discussion to that aspect of Christianity which deals with the "Law", that is, the Torah, and the effects of the misunderstanding concerning the place of the Torah which pervades Christian tradition. I am not going to attempt to prove that the traditional beliefs are incorrect. Instead I will simply point them out and explain their effect. I am directing my statements toward those who hold to these traditions, and further, to those who claim that these traditions are biblically based. Subsequent discussion, therefore, assumes that the reader claims to believe the "Old Testament", as well as the "New Testament" writings. Let's begin with an analysis of a passage from the book called "Acts of the Apostles". I quote from the New International Version chapter 21 verses 17-24: --- "When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. "When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: 'You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.'" --- This passage would seem to demonstrate unequivocally that the early disciples believed in keeping the law of Moses, the Torah. If Paul had any disagreement with the last sentence, then if he were a man of character, he would have vehemently disagreed with it. If Paul believed that keeping the law has no place in the life of the believer, as Christian tradition has it, then he should have jumped up in outrage and said, "Hey!! Wait a minute! We are not under the law. The death and resurrection of Jesus has set us free from these dead traditions so that we can serve in the newness of the Spirit!! You guys here in Jerusalem are in error and you need to repent from these dangerous legalistic tendencies." Instead, the account has it that he went along with the plan. So why do we hear in Sunday sermon after Sunday sermon that Jesus set us free from the binding authority of Torah? Why are we continually reminded that keeping the law will not get you into heaven (often with the strong implication that it is useless or unnecessary to keep the law)? Why do so many people assume that Paul did not continue to keep the law after his experience on the road to Damascus? The answer is two-fold. First, there are passages in Paul's writing concerning "law" which are difficult to understand. Passages in Romans, Galations, Ephesians are interpreted to mean that the law has been set aside in the plan of God. It is no longer necessary to observe the commandments of Moses because Jesus Christ has "abolished the ordinances with his flesh", "set us free from the law of sin and death". Jesus is "the end of the law for them that believe". Paul also makes statements that seem to say that Kashrut is no longer valid and observance of holy days is now irrelevant. Secondly, Christianity *DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT PAUL WAS A MAN OF CHARACTER*. The problem is that there are statements in Paul's writing which lead many Christians to the not-consciously-acknowledged conclusion that Paul had a duplicitous nature. Two examples (paraphrased from memory) should suffice: "To the Greeks I became as a Greek and to the Jews I became as a Jew in order that I might win them to Christ" "I would have you be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves" In other words, Christians would view Paul's acceptance of the plan of the elders as a way of deceiving the Jews into believing that he himself was Torah-observant, when in fact (according to Christian tradition) he was not, in order that he might "win them to Christ". My purpose here is not to thoroughly document this phenomenon, but only to introduce it. I think that if Christian readers are honest they will recognize the sort of thing I am talking about. The implications of this are actually quite staggering and far-reaching into the very guts of Christendom. Christianity accepts the writings of Paul. In fact, Paul is recognized as one of the great heros of Christianity -- the founder of the Gentile church, the super-evangelist who can claim more converts and more influence on the ideological direction of the Church than anyone else. Paul is the ultimate role model for every starry-eyed convert out to win the world for Jesus Christ. He is the most quoted, most looked up to, most emulated of all the early believers. AND YET HE IS UNIVERSALLY BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN A LIAR. I submit that Christian tradition has created a non-existant Paul: a Torah-apostate double-dealer who believed that the only valid thing to do is win converts to Christianity, and who felt that a certain amount of duplicity toward this end is entirely acceptable and even meritorious. Perhaps you think that this overstated. My conclusions are based on the experience of countless sermons, bible-studies, Christian media and active evangelical work. Maybe I just happened to be in the wrong denomination? Maybe I should have read Dr. X's 20 volume, ultra-scholarly commentary on the epistles? I don't think so. Those who claim to be well-informed are just as confused as anyone else with respect to the Law question. The opinions expressed in this newsgroup haven't succeeded in changing my perception of the *character defect* problem. So Christianity denies the yolk of Torah, believing that the yolk of Jesus has replaced it, and it sees no problem with a duplicitous Paul. How does this affect the actions of a Christian? What impact does this way of thinking have on the world with which the Christian interacts? And finally, what are the implications for the future? First, let me provide one example from the past which will serve to illustrate the effect of this false thinking. Consider the case of Martin Luther. When Luther first broke with the Catholic Church he made overtures to the Jews, lightening their persecution, because he believed the explanation for Jewish rejection of Jesus lay in oppressive RC policies. After a few years, when it became clear to him that Jews still resisted conversion efforts, Luther became viscerally anti-Jewish. I requote random Lutherisms from tracts written in his later years (these first appeared in my article a few months ago called "Christian Persecution of Jews"): "Jews are poisoners, ritual murderers, usurers ... they are parasites on Christian society ... they are worse than devils ... it is harder to convert them than Satan himself ... they are doomed to hell. They are, in truth, the anti-Christ. Their synagogues should be destroyed and their books seized ... they should be forced to work with their hands ... better still they should be expelled by the princes from their territories" Martin Luther I want to point out here the duplicitous capriciousness of Luther's actions. First, consider his motive in lightening the oppression of the Jews. His aim, his only aim, was to win the Jews to Christ. Luther's misunderstanding of the character of Paul would lead him to think that this is, in itself, the most virtuous motive that anyone could possibly have. HE DIDN'T LIGHTEN THE OPPRESSION BECAUSE THE OPPRESSION WAS WRONG. This is a very important point and central to my thesis. Luther's actions, because he did not accept the binding authority of Torah, were not based on questions of right and wrong. His action was duplicitous. Can you see that? This point is so important that it deserves another paragraph. Contrast Luther with a Man of Character. The Man of Character is guided by principle: a code, or set of laws, by which he makes judgement. The Man of Character, on seeing the oppression of the Jews, on seeing that the Jews were law-abiding and no fault could be found in them, would have been outraged at such an injustice FOR ITS OWN SAKE. That is, without grinding his own ax, without considering any possible advantage or disadvantage, the Man of Character loves Justice, FOR ITS OWN SAKE, and seeks to exalt Justice, according to right principle, at every opportunity. Contrast Luther with King David, a man after God's own heart. David, a righteous man, would have been moved with anger on seeing the plight of a wrongly oppressed group of people. And the oppression ALONE would have moved him to fight for the Jews. To lift the oppression for any other reason, no matter how noble-sounding, would be unthinkable. The Man of Character simply says, "Hey, these people are oppressed! It is WRONG for them to be oppressed. How can I give sleep to my eyes while this oppression is going on right under my own nose, when I have the power to do something about it? The second thing that I want to point out is the maddening capriciousness of Luther's actions. What did Luther do when he lightened the oppression of the Jews? Well, in a Just system of government, officially sanctioned oppression is reserved for criminals. By lifting oppression, Luther is acknowledging the legitimacy of Jews. How did he make this judgement? By Torah? By something concrete, a code written down that all can understand and so use to predict the actions of one who follows that code? If so, why did he later change his mind? Did the code change? Can we respect such a code that is based on the whim and caprice of the codifier? How can Luther explain his actions? How can ANYONE explain Luther's actions? When I submitted my "Christian Persecution of Jews" article last summer which included Luther's statements, many Christians responded by Email. I found the responses disgusting. NOT ONE CHRISTIAN GAVE A DAMN ABOUT THE INJUSTICES I DESCRIBED. Without exception, the responses were limited to "Those people weren't really Christians" or "Why did you bring this up? What will the unbelievers think?" or "I'm getting tired of hearing all that stuff in the past". One prominent contributor to the net offerred the following, "Luther was a sword-evangelist, i.e. 'Repent or Die'. The concept of individual soul liberty didn't evolve until later". How does that explain anything? It even seems to suggest that Luther's actions were justifiable! Christian, get your head out of the clouds for a moment and put yourself in the place of a Jew under Luther. You are elated that your oppression has been lifted, though you have been TRAINED to be somewhat wary of these Yahoo Goyim who seem to make up the rules as they go along. And, sure enough, after a few years, without any REAL explanation at all, the oppression returns worse than ever. Why? What crime was committed? What transgression is being punished? Or, as Jesus put it, "Which of you convicts me of sin?" Can't you see the horrible injustice of this? Doesn't your blood get hot just thinking about it? How can God possibly give license to a system of government which carries on like that? I will submit that he didn't, that he heard the years and years of the earnest prayers of the oppressed and had mercy on them by establishing a more secularly-oriented government that the wrongfully oppressed could participate in. When you start making noise about a "Christian America" is it any wonder that Jews provide such stiff opposition? It takes more than a hand-wave to explain the last two thousand years of Church history. The evidence suggests that there is something organically wrong with Christianity itself, and not just a few individuals who went off the deep end. Christianity is a sort of lobotomy; a cerebrum detached from its soul, the Torah; floating free from restraint or purpose; imagining all sorts of pleasant sounding thoughts, platitudes; having only a secondary or accidental concern for Justice. Christianity rejects the definition of sin and yet claims to be able to identify sin. This leads to all sorts of bizarre nonsense such as we see in this newsgroup, for example. What does it mean to repent from sin? How do you define sin? How can you judge right and wrong? Rather, how can you objectively explain it? Where is your standard for all to see so that they know what you are talking about? How can you expect to carry on rational public-policy discussions with the sort of *pick-and-choose* approach that so many use: "Well, we get our values from the Ten Commandments". "Oh, I see. Do you keep the Sabbath?" "Uh. Well, Paul said we don't have to keep that one." And so on. Does noone see the absurdity of this? You don't even realize that the ten commandments were given to Jews, NOT Goys. You have no way of communicating your own agenda. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously? The future? Well, Christians are at least as susceptible to buzz-phrases as anyone else. If someone is able to speak the jargon, then he can be accepted as a Christian so long as he doesn't do anything too outrageous. At first. And people who are as deceived as the guy who saw nothing wrong with Martin Luther's actions won't have any objection at all! All the "man of lawlessness" has to do is explain how he is "winning the world for Jesus" and many Christians will welcome him openly, TOTALLY UNCONSCIOUS OF ANY ATTROCITIES COMMITTED ALONG THE WAY. Why? Because they deny Torah and have adopted false values in its place. Just like Martin Luther. And just like many Christians who contribute to this net. -- David Brunson "Which of you convicts me of sin?"