“If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults—take them to the place the Lord your God will choose. Go to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the Lord will choose. Be careful to do everything they instruct you to do. Act according to whatever they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left.” – Deut 17:8-11

The Torah granted authority to the priests and judges in matters regarding the interpretation and application of the law, not to the common Israelite. The community of Israel was made subject to ruling religious establishment, to act and do according to their word neither turning “to the right or to the left.”

The Torah for us today is rather abstract. We study it, we revere it, and of our own volition as “Hebrew Roots” followers we try to live by it; however during the Old Testament it served as the legal constitution for the Theocracy of Israel as a nation. This Theocracy had the imperative to ensure that the entire nation had a uniform understanding regarding what the Torah required and how to properly obey it – otherwise it would have been virtually impossible to enforce the Torah. For example, imagine that you are an ancient Israelite living on the land. Two witnesses catch you breaking the Sabbath by performing unnecessary physical labour. You are then dragged to the feet of the High Priest and he asks, “You have just been caught red handed acting in defiance against God by breaking the Sabbath, what do you have to say for yourself?” Imagine your response is: “Ah, technically I didn’t break the Sabbath… according to my interpretation.” This of course would not stop the pain of a horrible death by stoning soon after your trial.

If every Israelite had the right to determine what was permissible, good or bad; essentially tailoring their own personal Halakah, then this would serve as a foot in the door for sin to creep in as corrupt and hard hearts would apply the Torah with bias in their lives. As scripture shows, God is not pleased when this happens:

“Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.” – Deuteronomy 12:8

“In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” – Judges 17:6

The Torah does not endorse an “obey the Torah at your own discretion according to what is sensible to you” policy. “Halakhic Authority” was only granted to the ruling religious establishment in every generation for the purpose of defining and imposing a uniform Halakah for all of Israel, and for settling unique matters where the Torah isn’t entirely clear. For example the Torah prescribes a number of stripes/whips to be administered as punishment to “Condemn the wicked”:

“If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.” – Duet 25:1-3

What sort of transgression or transgressions would warrant this procedure of a public whipping? The Torah does not say. The “Mishnah” however, dedicates an entire chapter known as “Makkoth” translated as “Stripes” to listing the various violations that merit this consequence.

Deuteronomy 23 mentions three categories of people who are forbidden to “Enter the assembly of the Lord”:

“No man with crushed or severed genitals may enter the assembly of the LORD. No one of illegitimate birth may enter the assembly of the LORD, nor may any of his descendants, even to the tenth generation. No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even to the tenth generation.” – Deuteronomy 23:1-3

What does it mean to be forbidden to “enter the assembly of the Lord”? Are these three categories of people made into social outcasts? The religious authorities settled the issue; Halakah determined that “entering into the assembly” meant marriage. A man with crushed testicles therefore was simply not permitted to marry a Jewish woman:

“He that is wounded in the stones or had his privy member cut off is permitted to marry a female proselyte or freed slave, only he may not enter into the assembly [marry a Jewish woman].” – Mishnah Yebamoth 8:2

According to Deuteronomy 23:3 the Moabite is not allowed to “enter into the assembly” through marriage with an Israelite:

“No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even to the tenth generation.” – Deuteronomy 23:1-3

Three possible forms of Halakah can result from this reading:

1. The prohibition forbids Moabite males and females from marrying Israelites.
2. The prohibition only forbids Moabite males (not females) from marrying into Israel.
3. The prohibition only forbids Moabite females (not males) from marrying into Israel.

If you were an ancient Israelite judge facing the situation of an Israelite and Moabite wanting to marry, how would you decide? Again, the righteous judge would not choose arbitrarily, nor would he execute a ruling based on what was sensible to him. The righteous judge would administer justice according to the established Halakah. If Halakah did not yet exist, then he would consult the head priests and judges and wait for the ruling to be decided.

In the book of Ruth, Ruth (a Moabite descendant and ancestor to Jesus) was allowed to marry a Jewish man resulting in an apparent contradiction with Deuteronomy 23:3. Evidently, ancient Jewish Halakah had ruled in favour of number 2: Deuteronomy 23:3 only applied to Moabite men, while Moabite women were free to marry. The Mishnah confirms this:

“An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden and forbidden for all time [to marry an Israelite], but their women are permitted forwith.” – Mishnah Yebamoth 8:3

Over time, the activity of wielding divine authority granted by the Torah to permit or to forbid with the will of heaven in full accord became associated with two Hebrew words: Asar and Hitir. The Hebrew verb Asar appears in the Old Testament 70 times, and can be found translated into the English as “tether” “tie” “imprison” “confine” etc. Hitir carried with it the opposite meaning; to untie, release, liberate or loose. To definitively settle a dispute or forbid an activity was therefore understood as an execution of the power to “Asar” or to “bind”. To permit an activity or settle a matter mercifully was understood as an execution of the power to “Hitir” or to “loose”.

Josephus, 1st Century Jewish Historian writes:

“But these Pharisees…became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed at their pleasure.” – Wars of the Jews 1:5:2

The legal connotations attached to these words did remain well until the 5th century as the terms “bind” and “loose” can be found in Rabbinical discussions as written in the Talmud:

“If one sage declared something as bound, he should not ask another sage who might declare it loosed. If two sages are both present and one rules something unclean and the other rules it clean, if one binds and the other looses, then if one of them is superior to the other in learning and number of disciples, follow his ruling, otherwise, follow the stricter view.” – Talmud Avodah Zarah 7a

“There are often debates among these groups, as some of these Sages render an object or person ritually impure and these render it pure; these bind an action and these loose it; these deem an item invalid and these deem it valid” – Talmud Chagigah 3b

This therefore totally rocks the foundation of typical Protestant thinking regarding Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:18-20:

“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

While most translations fall short in this passage, the Amplified Bible gets it right:

“I will give you the keys (authority) of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind [forbid, declare to be improper and unlawful] on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose [permit, declare lawful] on earth will have [already] been loosed in heaven.” – Matthew 18:18 (AMP)

The Orthodox Jewish Bible translates it with the very Hebrew word Asur (same Hebrew word as Asar):

“ I will give you the maftechot Malchut HaShomayim (keys of the Kingdom of Heaven); and whatever you shall bind as asur (prohibited) on haaretz shall be bound as asur (prohibited) in Shomayim…”

While most Christians have understood this passage in various ways (mostly as a proof text for praying against demons by “binding” them) it seems much scholarship has made the concession that it could only be understood in its Jewish context:

“it is as plain as the sun, by what occurs in numberless places dispersed throughout the Mishna, and from thence commonly used by the later rabbins [rabbis] when they treat of ritual subjects, that binding signified, and was commonly understood by the Jews at that time to be, a declaration that any thing was unlawful to be done; and loosing signified, on the contrary, a declaration that any thing may be lawfully done. Our Savior spoke to his disciples in a language which they understood….” –Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary (Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, New York), Vol. 5, p. 184, note on Matthew 18:18.

“‘Bind’ and ‘loose’ are technical terms in Judaism…with respect to teaching, the phrase is used for authoritative exposition of the law by an authorized, ordained rabbi, who has authority ‘to forbid and to permit.’ ” – Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1990), p. 293.

In his commentary on the New Testament, the author John Lightfoot writes that to assume that Jesus meant anything other than the Jewish meaning and context behind the words “bind” and “loose” is a “matter of laughter or madness”:

“…to bind and loose, a very usual phrase in the Jewish schools, was spoken of things, not of persons…. the reader sees abundantly enough both the frequency and common use of this phrase, and the sense of it also; namely, first, that it is used in doctrine, and in judgments, concerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, that ‘to bind” is the same with to forbid, or to declare forbidden. To think that Christ, when he used the common phrase was not understood by his hearers in the common and vulgar sense, shall I call it a matter of laughter or of madness?” – John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Vol. 2, Matthew -1 Corinthians (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, originally 1859, reprinted 1979), pp. 236-241; notes on Matthew 16:19.

This is paramount to understand. In giving the authority to “Bind” and “loose” Jesus was transferring power to establish Halakah from the Sanhedrin, to Peter and the Apostles. In doing so, this forces us to concede that such power did and does exist, and before this moment, the religious rulings of the Pharisee’s were indeed binding on the Jewish people. This is especially provocative, given that most in the Messianic and Hebrew Roots communities are in staunch opposition to the “Oral Torah” or that such a concept was ever valid.

In the Pseudo-Clement Homilies, second epistle of Clement to James, Peter allegedly passes on this authority to Clement of Rome (third Bishop of Rome):

“I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church.”

The ability to “communicate” this power is the basis through which loyal Catholics justify the authority of the Pope and Vatican Law:

“The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others… What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To ‘bind’ (dêsêis) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to ‘loose’ (lusêis) is to permit. ” – A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1930), p. 134; comment on Matthew 16:19.

However, the ability to “bind” and “loose” is only authorised if done within the parameters of the Torah. The Torah has a protective principle: the Torah does not allow adding to it or removing from it. The gospels give us many examples of Jesus rebuking the Pharisee’s for removing from the Torah by establishing loopholes around it and for adding to Torah by binding arbitrary requirements onto Israel that have nothing to do with what the Torah requires. These accounts are often used by those poised against the “Oral Law” to prove that Jesus opposed it, however it must be understood that Jesus was only against the unlawful elements of the Oral law and not the Oral law itself. To reiterate, this is proved on account that Jesus validated the concept of the ability to “Bind” and “loose” by taking it away from the Sanhedrin (for their unlawful use of it) and giving it to the Apostles. Obeying Halakah is a Torah requirement. Many who don’t understand this miss the contradiction of simultaneously believing Jesus never sinned (transgressed the Torah) yet at the same time taught against the Oral Torah in its entirety.

This is why in Matthew 23 Jesus endorses obeying the Pharisee’s:

“Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: ‘The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’”

However Matthew 23 in Hebrew is worded as follows:

“The scribes and Pharisees sit upon the seat of Moses. Therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, diligently do, but according to their reforms (takanot) and their precedents (ma’asim) do not do, because they talk but they do not do.” – George Howards translation of Matthew. The Shem Tov text. 1987.

“Takanot” and “Ma’asim” are Rabbinical terms for two different categories of law found in the Oral Torah. Jesus tells them to disregard them, for they “do not do” which sounds strange even in the Hebrew. Author of the book “The Hebrew Yeshua vs The Greek Jesus” and known friend to many Hebrew Roots proponents, Nehemiah Gordon writes:

“What did Yeshua mean when he said “they do not do”? What do they not do? When I first read this in Hebrew it sounded like something was missing at the end of the verse.” – page 55

Nehemiah continues:

“As I read the biblical account of the Samaritans I came across a verse which was difficult to understand. This Tanach verse was a synopsis of the Samaritans:

‘Until this very day they do according to their former ways, they do not fear the Lord, and they do not do, according to their statutes and their judgements, according to the Torah and commandments that the Lord commanded the children of Jacob.’ – 2 Kings 17:34

This is a literal translation of the verse as it appears in Hebrew and clearly it does not make sense. It sounds as if the book of Kings is criticising the Samaritans for not doing “according to their statures and their judgements” when in the beginning of the very same verse it criticizes them for doing according to their former ways. So what is going on here?…As I read this I knew that Hebrew syntax, the way sentences are structured, is quite different from English syntax. Sometimes one must read the Hebrew verse out loud several times to get the meaning…The way the verse is structured in Hebrew lays emphasis on the Samaritans doing ‘according to their statures and their judgements’ but ‘they do not do’ according to the Torah.’” – page 56-57

Thanks to the Hebrew and our Jewish brother Nehemiah Gordon, it’s now much easier to discern what Jesus could have been saying. He was ordering the Apostles to obey the lawful elements of the Oral Torah, however for the unlawful elements – Jesus instructed “do not do”. For through the practice of their “Takanot” and “Ma’asim” (the pharisees) they do not do (meaning they are not following the Torah).

After Jesus transferred power to “Bind” and “loose” to Peter and the Apostles what did they do with it? Can we find an account in the New Testament where this authority was exercised?

A passage in John Lightfoot’s commentary on the New Testament makes an absolutely crucial point:

“…Hence they [the Apostles] bound, that is, forbade, circumcision to the believers…”- John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica: Vol. 2, Matthew -1 Corinthians (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, originally 1859, reprinted 1979), pp. 236-241; notes on Matthew 16:16

This takes us straight to Acts 15.

During the time of the second century, a class of gentiles known as “God fearers” frequented synagogues and consorted with religious Jews, wishing to join in worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob:

“They are monotheists in the biblical sense, and they participate in some of the ceremonial requirements of the law, but they have not moved on to full conversion to Judaism through circumcision. They are called sebomenoi or phoboumenoi ton theon.” – K.G. Kuhn and H. Stegeman, “Proselyten,” RE, suppl. Ix (1962), 1260.

“In Diaspora there was an increasing number, perhaps millions by the first century, of sebomenoi (…God fearers), gentiles who had not gone the whole route towards conversion.” – Encyclopedia Judaica 10:55, s.v. “Jewish Identity”.

These two Greek words “sebomenoi” and “phoboumenoi ton theon” used interchangeably to reference the God-fearer, appear in acts a total of 15 times throughout the narrative. “Phoboumenoi ton theon” is translated in English as:

“Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God (phoboumenoit ton theon), give audience.” – Acts 13:16

Sebomenoi has been translated in a number of ways such as “devout” “religious” “worshipping” however regardless of the English translation; the intended reference behind the Greek is a subject occupying the in-between territory of renouncing a pagan background, but not yet fully a convert to Judaism:

“And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout (sebomenoi) Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.” – Acts 17:4

“And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped (sebomenoi) God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” – Acts 16:14

The God-Fearers were massive in number and very influential:

“[There was a] numerous class…although most of them did not feel able to shoulder the whole burden of the Law, they sympathized with Judaism…They were to be found in the provinces as well as in Italy, even in Rome…As they often belonged to upper classes their mere presence added in the eyes of the authorities weight of Jewish influence…” – M. Avi-Yonah, the Jews of Palestine (Oxford, 1796) 37.

“[Because of the] Many God-fearers…Hellenistic Judaism had almost succeeded in making Judaism a world religion in the literal sense of the words.” – Dr. Flusser, “Paganism in Palestine,” in Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum I.2, edd. S. Safrai and M. Stern (Assen, 1976) 1097.

Today the “God-Fearers” are regarded by another name; Modern Orthodox Judaism has chosen the title “Sons of Noah” or simply “Noahides.” Although the historical accounts do not indicate that the God-Fearer during the time of the book of Acts had any formalized set of law, the Noahides under Orthodox Judaism follow the 7 mitzvot (commandments) of Noah:

“The children of Noah were commanded with seven mitzvot: [to establish] laws, and [to prohibit] cursing God, idolatry, illicit sexuality, bloodshed, robbery, and eating flesh from a living animal.” – Tosefta Avodah Zerah 8:4

The William Davidson translation of the Talmud links the Noahide with a Hebrew term “Ger Toshav”:

“They were sitting again and a dilemma was raised before them: With regard to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [Ger Toshav], including the prohibition against engaging in idol worship, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that he can revoke the status of objects of idol worship?” – Talmud, Avoda Zara 64b

Rabbi David Katz, leading Rabbi to the “B’nai Noah” (Sons of Noah) writes this regarding the “Ger Toshav”:

“Every sect of Torah Judaism and selected sages of Israel have written about the Ger Toshav, and in particular, its relevance today. Torah luminaries…have written about the Ger Toshav that was brought down from the Chazal and elucidated by the Rishonim. As we all know, the sages of Israel have been known to disagree on certain matters. But the Ger Toshav has a unanimous standing among all sages; there is universal agreement about the fundamentals of Ger Toshav…”

If this is as solid of a teaching as the Rabbi claims, then we should expect to find something about this “Ger Toshav” in the Old Testament. The “Ger Toshav” can only be identified in the original Hebrew:

And if a sojourner [ger] or stranger [toshav] wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger [Ger Toshav] or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family: – Lev 25:47

Scripture makes one reference to a “Ger Toshav” (Lev 25:47) although every other time it makes distinction between a “Ger” and the “Toshav” as two different categories of gentile:

And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger[ger], or a sojourner[toshab]; that he may live with thee. – Leviticus 25:35

And if a sojourner [ger] or stranger [toshab] wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger [ger] sojourner [toshab] by thee, or to the stock of the stranger’s family: – Lev 25:47

These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger [ger], and for the sojourner [toshab] among them: that every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither. – Numbers 35:15

Technically “Ger” can refer to both categories (Ger and Ger Toshav), yet the Hebrew text follows a consistent trend of separating the two, seemingly in order to mark a distinction between the “Ger” and the “Toshav” hinting of two different classes. At least by the time of the Second Temple, this distinction became very significant.

Every time the word “Ger” appears in the text in reference to the legal obligations of the Ger, the translators of the Greek Septuagint (translated by 70 Rabbis around the 3rd Century BC) consistently inserted the word “Proselyte”:

“Ye shall have one law [Torah] for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger [ger]that sojourneth among them.” – Numbers 15:29

tó enchorío en yioís Israil kaí tó prosilýto (Proselyte) tó proskeiméno en aftoís nómos eís éstai aftoís ós án poiísi akousíos – Numers 15:29

“So David gave orders to assemble the foreigners [Ger] residing in Israel, and from among them he appointed stonecutters to prepare dressed stone for building the house of God.” – 1 Chronicles 22:2

kaí eípen David synagageín pántas toús prosilýtous (PROSELYTES) en gí Israil kaí katéstisen latómous latomísai líthous xystoús toú oikodomísai oíkon tó theó – 1 Chronicles 22:2

This is noted by Rabbi Shaye Cohen:

“In those passages of the Torah that emphasize the social inequality of the resident alien, the Septuagint usually translates ger with paroikos, Greek for “resident alien;” in those passages in the Torah that emphasize the legal equality of the resident alien, the Septuagint usually translates ger with proselutos [proselyte]…” – “The Beginnings of Jewishness” (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998), 121

The sages under second Temple era Judaism held the understanding that “Ger” was not just a reference to a gentile, but to a gentile convert:

“The Hebrew ger (in post-Biblical times translated as “proselyte”) literally means “resident” and refers to a non-Israelite who lived among the Israelite community. When the Torah commands compassion and equal justice for the ger, it is referring to these “residents”. Rabbinic tradition interpreted the word ger as referring to proselytes…” – Rabbi Marc D. Angel (2005). “Choosing to Be Jewish”, K’Tav Publishing.

“In the late Second Temple times, the term ger had become virtually synonymous with “proselyte,” and strangers were admitted to the religious fellowiship of Israel.” – David L. Lieber, “Strangers and Gentiles,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (2nd Edition) 19:241-242

The most convincing text in support of the link between the “Ger” and the proselyte is found in Exodus 12. Exodus 12:43 reads that no “Foreigner” is to eat of the Passover lamb:

“And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it.” (NIV)

In verse 45 this sentiment is reiterated:

“A temporary resident or hired hand shall not eat the Passover.” – Exodus 12:45 (NIV)

In verse 48 suddenly an exception is made for a foreigner, when God had just hammered the instruction to prevent the foreigner from eating of the Passover:

“If a foreigner resides with you and wants to celebrate the LORD’s Passover, all the males in the household must be circumcised; then he may come near to celebrate it, and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised man may eat of it.” (NIV) – Exodus 12:48

In Hebrew, when the terms for each category of gentile are not confused, the apparent sudden change in policy now makes sense:

“And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner [nekar] is to eat of it.” (NIV)

“Nekar” is not a “Ger” or “Toshav” but represents a third category of gentile. A Nekar is not to eat of it.

“A temporary resident [Toshav] or hired hand shall not eat the Passover.” (NIV)

Now we have two categories: The “Nekar” and the “Toshav” shall not eat of the Passover.

“If a foreigner [Ger] resides with you and wants to celebrate the LORD’s Passover, all the males in the household must be circumcised; then he may come near to celebrate it, and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised man may eat of it.” (NIV)

While the “Nekar” and “Toshav” are excluded, the “Ger” is invited to become circumcised in order to celebrate Passover like a native to the land. After the “Ger” is circumcised, the same law for Passover that applies to the native-born, now applies to the “Ger”:

“The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner [Ger] residing among you.”

However, circumcision is not just a requirement for Passover but represents full conversion to Judaism. After circumcision, the “Ger” is like the native in all respects:

Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the stranger[ger], as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God. – Lev 24:22

One law [Torah] and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger [ger] that sojourneth with you. – Numbers 15:16

Ye shall have one law [Torah] for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger [ger]that sojourneth among them. – Numbers 15:29

There is one Torah to be followed by the native born Israelite and the proselyte. Key word here: Proselyte, not gentile. Without the Hebrew and lacking the insight of what the “Ger” really is, we inevitably read into what most “Hebrew Roots” members see in the text. These passages have been used to “prove” that all gentile believers are subject to the same requirements as the Jew; that gentiles must follow the Torah or venture into willful sin. However, the role of Halakah and the authority to “Bind” and “loose” needs to be taken into account. Regardless of what we read in the text, it stands that the sages while they had the authority, “bound” the proselyte to the Torah and “loosed” the gentile from the requirement to obey the Torah in order to be eligible to live on the Holy land and share in the “world to come”:

“Anyone who accepts upon himself the fulfillment of these seven mitzvoth [Noahide laws] and is precise in their observance is considered one of ‘the pious among the gentiles’ and will merit a share in the world to come.” – Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot M’lakhim 8:11

The “Ger Toshav” is therefore a gentile outside of covenant residing on the Holy land under the condition they obey a bare minimum set of rules. As long as the bare minimum is adhered to, they are considered “pious” and allowed to live and worship among the native born in the land. With the exception that the “God-Fearer” didn’t always live on the land, this sounds remarkably similar to the Sebomenoi. The Sebomenoi (God-Fearer), Ger Toshav, Noahide – these are all referring to the same category of gentile. Jewish Halakah had provided a way for gentiles to be blessed by the God of Abraham without having to become members of the Mosaic Covenant.

This is why Peter had to be prepared by way of a startling vision, to accept and understand the event of gentile God-fearers receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 10. We underestimate how much this was a departure from the norm. The Jewish Christians knew that the sign of becoming a member of the New Covenant was the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For all time, up until this point, in order for a gentile to join the Mosaic Covenant the procedure for circumcision had to be done first, following a commitment to obeying the entire Torah. However in Acts 10, the God-Fearer Cornelius and a gathering of gentiles received the Holy Spirit upon faith alone. This meant that they became members of the New Covenant without having to become circumcised first! This completely defied and blurred all categories – the gentiles were not longer “God-fearers” they were full blown members of Covenant. As Paul puts it, they had received the “circumcision of the heart.” They were now, in a way, Spiritual Jews.

Soon “Judaizers” began to pressure the new gentile Covenant members to receive circumcision and follow the Torah. If we try to understand from their point of few, it makes logical sense. It follows like this: If the gentiles are now members of Covenant, then they should obey the terms of Covenant (Torah) like everyone else. Now, this wasn’t a mean spirited effort by the Jews to drag the gentiles down with them. They were concerned for their salvation. Again, if the terms of the Covenant is Torah, and if the gentiles as Covenant members are in wilful defiance of the Terms, this is bad news.

“Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.’” – Acts 15:1.

Paul and Barnabas were key players in this conflict, and they headed together to the mother Church in Jerusalem with James as head:

When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. – Acts 15:4-6

Peter stood in order to speak on behalf of the gentile:

“ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: ‘Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.’” – Acts 15:7-9

Peter then makes a statement that has been terribly misunderstood:

“Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” – Acts 15:10,11

The Torah itself is not the yoke Peter is speaking of. It’s hard to understand since as Protestant gentiles we have been conditioned against the law, but Peter as a Jew speaking to Jews would have never said such a thing. This would have contradicted scripture:

“Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.” – Deuteronomy 30:11

“I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts.” – Psalms 119:45

Peter was pleading for the assembly to “loose” the issue; to rule in favor of a lenient position. It was the inclination of the Sages and the Sanhedrin to “Bind” the Torah so that the yoke of the Torah was unnecessarily heavy. Jesus makes the same sentiment:

“[The Pharisee’s] they tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” – Matthew 23:4

A good example of how the Sages tied heavy loads (burdensome Halakah) unto the Jewish people is the requirement for properly obeying the commandment to recite the “Shema” upon waking and before going to sleep. The Shema consists of three passages: Deut 6:5-9, Deut 11:13-31 and Numbers 15:37-41. If done this way, it can take 5 minutes or less. However Halakah ruled that 2 benedictions should be read before the Shema and one benediction after when read in the Morning, but when read at night the Shema is followed by 2 benedictions:

“In the morning two benedictions are said before [the Shema] and one after; and in the evening two Benedictions are said before and two after.” – Mishnah 1:4

These blessings, depending on the prayer book used can consist of one to three pages each. After the two benedictions are read, before the Shema can be recited, it is also required to don the “Tefillin” or “Phylacteries” consisting of two black boxes that you strap onto your left arm and on your forehead. However before you put them on, the Tefillin also have their individual benedictions. Once Tefillin is secured, you are now free to recite the Shema. After the Shema, one or two more benedictions are read depending on the time.

A procedure that should only take 5 minutes or less has now become a 15 minute or more process. This is just one small example. Now this is the heavy yoke that Peter was talking about.

James prepares for his final decision:

“It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” – Acts 15:19

Notice again, the emphasis on making it easier, not too difficult. They want to make lenient, light, easy Halakah. James as head of the Church then announces the act of “loosing” the issue, permitting the gentile to functionally remain as God-Fearers (even though they are Covenant members) as long as they obeyed the bare minimum of four rules:

“Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” – Acts 15:20,21

Author of “The disappearance of the God-fearers” ties it all together:

“In the traditional reconstruction of the historical situation, the characteristics of the God-fearer are as follows: 1) They are gentiles interested in Judaism, but not converts = proselytes; the men are not circumcised. 2) They are found in some numbers in teh synagogues of the Diaspora, from Asia Minor to Rome. 3) The God-Fearer as traditionally understood is particularly significant for students of the New Testament and early Christianity; it was from the ranks of the God-fearers that Christianity supposedly had recruited a great number of its first members.” – A. T. Kraabel
Numen, Vol. 28, Fasc. 2 (Dec., 1981), pp. 114

The writer then proposes that the God-fearers were a useful fiction necessary to the narrative of Acts:

“The God-Fearers disappear altogether, rather than coming to the fore, when Paul withdraws from the synagogue. After 19:9 Paul spends two years each in Ephesus, Caesaria and Rome, but they never appear again as the faith is spread in these Gentile cities. It is no accident that we have no more God-fearers after 18:7 and no more “going into the synagogues” after 19:8, these two themes go together, and after 19:9 neither one has any further use. The God-fearers appear on the stage as needed, off the stage after they have served their purpose in the plot. Acts cannot be used as evidence that there ever were such groups in the synagogues of the Roman Empire.” – page 120

The God-fearers did not disappear; according to the authors own words: “it was from the ranks of the God-fearers that Christianity supposedly had recruited a great number of its members”. Besides, the term Sebomenoi is a Greek word invented by Greeks. The Jews used the term “Ger Toshav” and according to Orthodox Jews and the Hebrew text itself, the Ger Toshav has been around since the beginning. Gentile Christians are the modern day Ger Toshav. The God-fearers have not disappeared; on the contrary, they have pioneered the highest ranking religion on the planet.

Paul was a fierce advocate of the right of the gentile to remain a God-fearer. This is the principle aim of all his epistles. Things took an unexpected turn when Paul writes:

“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.” – Galatians 5:2-4

Paul believed that salvation is freely given by faith. Paul writes that if a gentile approaches circumcision or any work in order to earn salvation, it was tantamount to rejecting the free gift that comes as a result of the merit of the Messiah, not one’s own merit. In addition, this not only applied to the gentile but to the Jew as well:

“We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.” – Galatians 2:15,16

Although the Jew was duty bound to obey the Torah, according to Paul it was understood by all Jews that obedience should not be done out of motive to earn:

“we who are Jews by birth…know that a person is not justified by the works of the law…”

Remarkably, such a concept is fundamental to Judaism even today:

“Antigones of Soko received [Torah] from Simeon the Righteous. He used to say, ‘Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of wages, but be like servants who serve their master with no thought of a wage – and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.’ ” (Mishnah, Avot 1:3)

The Rabbi Ben Azai (Mishnaic Sage) states that the reward for obeying a commandment is the commandment itself as well as the conditioned habit of obedience. If one is in the practice of obeying the Torah, this will lead the individual away from sin:

“Ben Azai says: Run to do an easy commandment as to a difficult one, and flee from sin; since a commandment leads to another commandment, and a sin leads to another sin; since the reward for a commandment is another commandment, and the reward for a sin is another sin.” (Mishnah, Avot 4:2)

We see that even during the time of the writing of the Talmud (500 AD) Rabbinic Judaism still taught against Torah keeping for motives other than the love of God and the desire to obey him:

“‘Happy is the one…That delighteth greatly in His commandments’, was explained by R. Eleazar thus: ‘it is a desire for the commandments, BUT NOT IN THE REWARD FOR KEEPING HIS COMMANDMENTS. This is just what we have learnt. ‘He used to say, Be not like servants who serve the master on the condition of receiving a reward; but be like servants who serve the master without the condition of receiving a reward.’ “But whose desire is in the law of the Lord.” – Talmud, Abodah Zarah 19A

This is an amazing revelation of how perfectly the New Testament completes the Old. The sages of old carried a powerful principle of “Chesed” meaning “mercy” or “grace”:

“Simeon the Righteous was of the remnants of the Great Assembly. He used to say, ‘On three things the world stands: On the Torah, On the Ministry, and on Chesidim (Acts of Grace, Mercy).’” – Mishna Avot 1:2

It was under God’s “Chesed” (grace) that the Jews were made righteous, not their Torah observance. Doesn’t Paul preach “grace” all over his epistles? Doesn’t “grace” just completely capture the message behind all of Paul’s work?

4th century theologian Augustine of Hippo writes:

“Paul was indeed a Jew, and when he had become a Christian, he had not abandoned those Jewish sacraments which that people had received in the right way and for a certain appointed time. Therefore, although he was an apostle of Christ, he took part in observing these; but with this view, that he might show that they were in no wise hurtful to those who, even after they had believed in Christ, desired to retain the ceremonies which by the law they had learned from their fathers; provided only that they did not build on these their hope of salvation, since the salvation which was foreshadowed in these has now been brought in by the Lord Jesus.” – Augustine, Letter, 40.4

Paul set to arm the gentile against “Judaizers” bent on forcing circumcision and conversion for the purpose of salvation. For his own people, he stressed a proper understanding of the Torah; that it did not grant salvation, but served its purpose when properly handled. This does not mean he taught the Jewish people to abandon the Torah! Paul himself assures us in his epistle to the Romans. In Romans 3, Paul states that salvation is by faith not by the law:

“For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law [Torah].” – Romans 3:28

Paul then inquires, if this is so, should we forget about the law? Stop doing it? Regard it as abolished?

“Do we, then, nullify the law [Torah] by this faith?”

Absolutely not!

“Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law [Torah].” – Romans 3:32

In Acts 21 James warns Paul that many had the impression that Paul was teaching the Jews to renounce the Torah:

“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.”

James gives Paul a few instructions for the purpose of proving the accusations were untrue, and that Paul himself was living in obedience to the law:

“Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.” – Acts 21

With all this in perspective, it’s now possible to decipher 1 Corinthians 7:19 (a commonly misunderstood verse).

Pamela Eisenbaum, associate professor of biblical studies at Iliff School of Theology undertakes the challenge and hits it out of the ballpark:

“Take for example 1 Corinthians 7:19: ‘circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything’ (NRSV). In my experience of teaching Paul, most Christians read over this verse without noting anything strange or confusing about it. However, Jewish readers often pause over it. Once, a student of mine who also happened to be an ordained rabbi used this verse to argue that Paul could not have been “really Jewish” because, either Paul is not the Pharisee-trained Jew he claimed to be, or he is very confused in his thinking. The Christian students in the class responded to the rabbi in predictable ways, claiming either that Paul’s point was that circumcision was not one of the ten commandments, or that it was not a moral commandment or ethical imperative like “Thou shall not kill,” and that it was those kinds of commandments that were really important…For now I simply want to use this verse to demonstrate that if one bears in mind that Paul is speaking to Gentiles, and that the teachings about Jewish law preserved in the apostle’s letters are teachings about how Torah is and is not applicable to Gentiles, then Paul’s reasoning begins to come clear…the commandment to circumcise applies specifically and exclusively to Jewish males, meaning it is not appropriate to circumcise Gentiles, for God did not and does not command Gentiles to be circumcised…Paul’s point is that God does not require the same things of all people at all times. Priests, for example, had to obey a set of purity laws that did not apply to Israelites in general. Since only Jews are commanded to be circumcised, Gentiles are following the will of God by not being circumcised. I would paraphrase 1 Corinthians 7:19 as follows: ‘When Jews are circumcised and Gentiles remain uncircumcised, both are following the will of God, so neither group can claim superiority by virtue of the practice (or nonpractice) of circumcision’” – “Paul was not a Christian” page 62-63

Toby Janicki in “God-Fearers” writes a near identical sentiment:

“With this understanding we can better understand apostolic passages such as, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3) and…(1 Corinthians 7:19). These passages were written to communities that contained to both Jews and Gentiles. Each person hearing these words would have understood “commandments” as referring to the specific parts of Torah that applied to them as a Jew or Gentile and man or woman.” – page 37

The Circumcision (those who are Jewish and following the Torah) and the un-circumcision (gentiles who are not following the Torah) have different requirements and what matters is that both do what is required of them. Paul is stressing that one is not better than the other. Both are serving God. Both the Jew and the gentile are saved by relying on Jesus in faith, not on their own works.

The concluding paragraph to chapter 2 in “God-Fearers” is more than fitting to provide the perfect close to this subject:

“In Messiah everyone is in equal standing before God as regards salvation, but we all have our individual responsibilities. There is only one Torah for all God’s people, but within that one Torah are many distinctions. Once we understand that the Torah itself makes these distinctions, it becomes easier for us to grasp the words of the apostles because, after all, it is the Torah from which they themselves are drawing.” – page 38

Well known Hebrew Roots advocate Zach Baur addresses the growing discord and disagreement plaguing the movement in his video titled: “Is the Hebrew Roots destroying itself?” In it, he likens this time of disorder to the event found in the fiction “War-games” where chaos is shown to precede the moment before an artificial intelligence becomes aware. Zach Baur insists:

“That’s what we are doing right now…as we are arguing about all these different topics, calendars and Feast days just being one of them…We’re learning. What we are learning is not to rely on ourselves. Not to rely on our own wisdom…That’s the movement right now. It’s learning.”

God is setting the stage for the re-emergence of conditions identical to 1st Century Christianity as it was practiced and taught by the Apostles and the first generation of Jewish Christian converts. Life is being breathed back into the Church as crucial elements that have been buried over time and forgotten are currently being unearthed, examined, and restored to our faith. We are currently pulling the sacred out of the soil. In these days the Temple is being rebuilt stone by stone, at least in spirit. As Zach Baur says: “We are learning” there is a purpose behind this period of mess and disorder as we attempt to make sense of it all. Where is this leading? What event could possibly bring an order to the chaos?

The order will come as it did in the Old Testament and following the example set in Acts 15: through the binding word and decree of a an assembly of Godly priests and judges. The Church in Jerusalem served as a Christian Sanhedrin upholding the teachings of the Torah as they were taught by the Master. The final decision of James was issued as a “Takanot” (a binding religious decree) according to the manner done by the sages and assemblies of the past. When a new Christian Sanhedrin convenes, it will carry on the task of establishing Halakah by binding and loosing, as well as settling disputes or lifting up the body with religious decrees. This new Christian Sanhedrin will then settle every issue currently causing division in the Hebrew Roots movement:

• Which parts of the “Oral Law” should be carried over to the New Covenant in order to be practiced by Messianic Jews and proselytes?
• Should Teffilin be worn while reciting the Shema?
• What does it mean to “round off the sides of the hair” (KJV) and “harm the edges” (KJV) of one’s beard?
• Which Calendar should be used? The Jewish calendar or the Kairite calendar?
• What is a Biblical new moon? Is it the first sign of a “sliver”?
• Should we avoid mixing dairy and meat products?
• Should we only eat Kosher meat?

So then what do we do now? For one, the community should study the concepts mentioned: Halakah, Binding and loosing, God-Fearer etc. We should bring these subjects to the discussion in order to diligently test these insights, and once tested, adjust accordingly. A foundation needs to be set in order to allow Messianic Jews, Hebrew Roots and Protestant Christians to engage in discussions together in peace. This means the “Hebrew Roots” need avoid becoming “Judaizers” at all costs. Protestant Christians need a dramatic re-evaluation of Paul and the Torah. Messianic Jews can serve as the mediator, helping peaceful discussion between the two parties. Since Messianic Judaism represents the original expression of the faith managing to endure and survive throughout the centuries, it has by far reserved the most wisdom and insight for piecing this all together.

After a repair of the divide has been made, efforts should be directed towards the establishment of a Sanhedrin. Scripture hints of when the Lord may allow this:

“If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults—take them to the place the Lord your God will choose. Go to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the Lord will choose.” – Deut 17:8-10

The place where the Lord chose to place his name is the temple. The passage states that Israel should do according to the decisions made when going to the religious authorities “at the place the Lord will choose.” This seems to imply the necessity of a standing temple for religious rulings to be considered valid. Therefore, the event of the construction of a new temple may go hand in hand with the rise of a dramatic reform in Christian organisation and doctrine.