Adopted Heirs

Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. -Ephesians 3:2-6

It's hard to see how the church believes it has replaced the Jewish people in God's covenant promises when you read these verses. It seems abundantly plain the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel. That's "together with", not "instead of". These few words alone shoot down the church's argument for Christian supersessionism, but what about the One Law viewpoint? Actually, Paul makes an interesting point:

This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. -Ephesians 3:6

Notice that Paul says in the promise in Christ Jesus, not in the promise in the Torah of Moses. The next logical question to ask is "What is the promise in Christ Jesus that makes Gentiles and Jews fellow heirs?"

I don't have a hard and fast answer, but tomorrow night, I'm going to ask a similar question: What did Jesus teach the Gentiles to obey? You can click the link to get the full summary of the class, but it's based on a series of articles I wrote on this blog some months ago. I'm trying to find out if it was the Messiah's intent to have the Gentile disciples learn and obey every commandment and covenant recorded in the Bible or if Jesus taught something that was more specific that was to be passed on to the Goyim?

The starting point for Gentile discipleship and "fellow heir-ship" isn't the Torah but the Gospels. Up until the Messiah came in human form, Gentiles could only fully access God and the covenants by converting to Judaism. Short of that, a Gentile who came to faith in the One God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, could become a God-fearer, which acknowledges God but doesn't give the non-Jewish person a standing before Him. I don't think (but I'm not a scholar) that the concept of a Gentile as a noahide existed in the First Century C.E., so that was the best a non-Jew could do if he or she came to faith in Israel's God.

Yeshua (Jesus) changed all that, but what did he do? That's the $64,000 question we all wrestle with.

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands) — remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. -Ephesians 2:11-13

"Formerly Gentiles"? What? I'm not a "Gentile" anymore? Does Paul mean that I'm a Jew by the blood of Christ? Oh wow!

This is where it would be helpful if I could read ancient Greek and determine what the original word was for what we read as "Gentile" in English. Does Paul mean that when a Gentile becomes a disciple of the Jewish Messiah, he or she automatically becomes a "spiritual Jew"? Or does he mean something else...like using "Gentiles" to mean "pagans"?

Paul seems to be using the former status of the Gentile disciples to illustrate that, in their (our) natural state, before coming to faith, we "were separate from Christ" and "foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world." Coming to faith then, joins us with Christ and makes us joined to the covenants of promise, giving us hope and giving us access to God.

But does it make Gentiles functionally identical to Jews in every respect and thereby removing the status of "Jew" or "Israelite" from existence? If that were true, God would have to break every promise He ever made to the Children of Israel in the Torah and the Prophets that they would always be a people before Him.

Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” -Exodus 19:5-6

I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high. -Leviticus 26:11-13

These are just two examples of God stating His intention and devotion to the Children of Israel as His "treasured, splendorous people". Of course, you could say that there were just a ton of non-Jews at the Sinai event, but as I previously mentioned, the "mixed multitude" lived identical lives to their Israelite counterparts and ultimately their offspring assimilated into Israel, becoming indistinguishable from the descendants of the Children of Jacob. If the "Ger" question were to apply to Gentile Messianic disciples, then the obvious answer is that we are to convert and assimilate into modern (Messianic) Judaism.

But that's not what Paul is saying. In fact, Paul was very much against Gentiles converting to Judaism in order to gain access to the promises.

Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. -Galatians 5:2-6

As far as I can see, that pretty much takes care of the "Ger" justification for identical Gentile and Jewish response to God and to the Torah. Now what about this?

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. -Galatians 3:26-29

The "neither Jew nor Gentile" part seems to confirm that Jews and Gentiles cease to exist under the Messianic covenant as distinct beings or people groups, which is not only the fear that every Jew has in relation to converting to Christianity, but is part of what the more conservative elements of Messianic Judaism have issues with in relation to One Law theology. However, Paul also says "nor is there male and female".

What a minute. The last time I looked at my wife, we had "distinctions" both in form and in function (and probably in role as well). Since God didn't blend males and females into one homogeneous, androgynous mass, what makes anyone think he took Jews and Gentiles and blended us all into one smooth, pureed mixture with no identifiable means of locating the original "ingredients"?

If, on the other hand, Paul meant that our standing in holiness and our access to God were the same, regardless of our gender, ethnic, or legal (slave vs. freeman) status, then we can be part of one body before the Messiah, and yet retain our individual forms and functions (kind of like a heart remaining a heart, the lungs remaining lungs, and a hippocampus remaining a hippocampus).

Does that solve the problem? Oh, heck no. I could write for hours (or days, or years) and not be able to "solve" anything. The neat thing about the Bible is that it can be interpreted in more than one way and therefore, different groups can use the Bible to establish different theologies, viewpoints, and worship patterns. While I believe there is one "right answer" to understand the Word, God is the only one who really knows it. The rest of us are dancing madly on the head of a pin trying to figure things out and guess what? We'll probably be doing that for the rest of our lives or until the Messiah returns, whichever comes first (that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying, but I wanted you to know what we are all facing together).

I can't get over the idea that the Messiah and his intentions are the key to everything. When Paul wrote the "grafted in" metaphor in Romans 11 he continued to make distinctions between the "natural branches" (Jews) and the "grafted in branches" (Gentiles) and the only thing they had in common is "the root" (Messiah) to which they were all attached. The two different types of branches remained two different types of branches. They didn't "morph" into a single type of branch. The commonality is the "nourishment" that fed them both.

That allows us to be "one body" and "one people" ("one tree"..."one vine with lots of branches") based on the source of our strength and our faith. We can "consume" the same God because the "alien" (former) Gentiles are now changed in status so that they (we) are capable of "eating" the "food of the Spirit" from which they (we) were previously unable to take in.

Like I said, I don't have all the answers. But I'd like to think that the questions are good ones. The journey along the path continues.

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark, ignoring the light of the world. Look for the lamp who lights your path or you may become lost in the dark forever.

"A Jew never gives up. We're here to bring Mashiach, we will settle for nothing less." -Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh

One Torah to Rule Them All

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 of God’s people, but within that one Torah are many different 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.

Toby Janicki
Article: One Law for All
Messiah Journal 105/ Fall 2010 Edition

Recently, Boaz Michael of First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) asked me to review some of the material in the latest edition of Messiah Journal. I wrote the first review on my congregation's blog addressing Boaz's letter about the FFOZ sister organization Vine of David, but the topic of Toby Janicki's One Law for All article seemed better suited for my personal blog. It's here where I am more at liberty to express my personal opinions on the issues that unite and separate Gentiles and Jews in the Messianic movement.

One Law for All is, as you might imagine, FFOZ's commentary on the traditional assumption among many Gentile Messianic groups that all of the Torah commandments which apply to the Jews apply also to Gentile believers by virtue of our being "grafted in" (Romans 11). Actually, the more common argument from the Gentile Messianic point of view has to do with the "ger" issue; the set of apparent statements in the Torah that say "one law" shall apply to the native born Israeli and the ger ("stranger", "alien", "sojourner") among you. The following is just one example:

For the generations to come, whenever a foreigner or anyone else living among you presents a food offering as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, they must do exactly as you do. The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the LORD: The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you -Numbers 15:14-16

Early in the article, I thought Janicki was going to step into the classic argument presented in traditional (that is, non-Messianic) Judaism stating that only the seven Noahide Laws apply to Gentile believers in Yeshua, as if Yeshua never existed, never taught, and never considered Gentiles in his teachings (let alone the teachings in the letters of Paul). Fortunately, he only starts out there.

Janicki expands his investigation into the use of the term "ger" using many examples (too many for me to cite in this review) showing the distinctions between how some of the various Torah commandments apply to the Jews and the Gentiles who lived among them in ancient times. He also very neatly integrates what FFOZ has called "divine invitation" (though he never mentions the term) into his narrative by illustrating how some of the Torah commandments are required by the Children of Israel but allowed by any Gentile who desires to comply. To illustrate this, let's look at a slightly different translation of the above quoted passage from Numbers:

And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD, he shall do as you do. For the assembly, there shall be one statute [chukkah achat] for you and for the stranger [ger] who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner [ger] shall be alike before the LORD. One law [torah achat] and one rule [mishpat echad] shall be for you and for the stranger [ger] who sojourns with you. -Numbers 15:14-16

The quote used in Janicki's article brings out a bit more clearly the distinction in this particular command between the obligation of the Jews to make such an offering and the acceptance (but not requirement) of the same offering from a Gentile temporary visitor or permanent "alien" resident. What Janicki doesn't state but I believe to be true, is that the distinction between "ger" and native Israeli persisted until either the ger left the community of Israel or completely assimilated (see Rahab, Ruth, and the mixed multitude who followed Moses out of Egypt) and finally became indistinguishable from the the Children of Jacob (See Who Belongs to the Covenant? below).

As a whole, I found Janicki's article to be well researched, easy to read, and straightforward in its approach. To go further, I agree that you can't base the Gentile Messianic "One Law assumption" on the set of "ger" quotes in the Torah. I previously wrote an analysis of this issue on my congregation's blog called Who Belongs to the Covenant? If you read my commentary and then review Janicki's article in Messiah Journal, you see that there is significant overlap in our viewpoints. That said, where I state in my article how the coming of Yeshua changed the landscape for the Gentiles, Janicki concludes with the following:

With this understanding we can approach Apostolic passages such as, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:3), and “Neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God” (1 Corinthians 7:19). These passages were written to communities that contained 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.

Janicki's, and thus FFOZ's conclusion is that what was established as the relationship between Jew and Gentile relative to God and the commandments in the Torah remains completely unchanged post-Messianic times and that only a tiny subset of Biblical commandments have any sort of application to Gentile believers. This would be the identical subset of Torah commandments established in the time of Moses and, from Janicki's perspective, be completely unmodified by the coming of Yeshua.

While I can agree with the vast majority of what Janicki says, he fails to acknowledge that the coming of the Messiah had any sort of impact on the change in status for Gentiles who have come to faith in the Jewish Messiah. It's as if we continue to remain "strangers" and "aliens" in the kingdom of God, like rogue asteroids or comets temporarily captured by the sun's gravity and always in danger of being cast away again into the darkness, as opposed to the more stable planetary (Children of Israel) bodies in permanent residence within the solar system. But what about this?

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me - just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life - only to take it up again. -John 10:14-16

Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. -Ephesians 3:2-6

The passages from John 10 and Ephesians 3 are repeatedly cited by Gentile Messianics when we try to establish that we do have a place in the Kingdom of God where we can stand alongside our Jewish brothers and sisters, however, they are never addressed in articles such as Janicki's, which primarily seek to establish areas of distinctions between Gentiles and Jews rather than create links or build bridges between our two groups.

I don't mean to say that Janicki's intent was hostile or divisive in any sense. There is nothing in the wording or tone of his article to suggest that he is attempting to marginalize Gentile believers in the Messiah in any way. His intent seems completely focused on clearing up how the "one law" passages in the Torah don't automatically mean Gentiles are obligated to Torah commandments in a manner identical (or even vaguely resembling) to the Jewish people. It's important to understand though, that the "ger" issue doesn't encompass the entire scope of Gentile status as the adopted offspring of God, and does not at all cover the things that Yeshua's coming changed as far how Gentiles can enter the kingdom.

I spent some time going over what Yeshua taught in the book of Matthew and collected a summary of my conclusions in the article What Did Jesus Teach the Gentiles to Obey? While there is additional exploration required in this area, but I do believe that there's more to the Gentile relationship to God and the commandments than can be accounted for by a hard look at the "ger" scriptures in the Torah.

I really like Janicki's article and recommend it as a very clear picture of how the "ger" and "one law" passages in the Torah can not be relied upon to establish Gentile "obligation" to Torah commandments, but please keep in mind that the scope of Janicki's analysis begins and ends within the "ger" topic. Relative to Yeshua, there is much more to discover about Gentile identity within the Messianic realm.

Do I believe that Gentile and Jewish obligation and observance of the Torah is different? Absolutely. Is the matter completely defined and settled within the confines of Janicki's article? Not at all. Janicki only settles (assuming you agree with all his conclusions) one aspect of the puzzle. There are many more jigsaw pieces to examine and construct before the entire picture becomes apparent. I hope this is a journey both Jewish and Gentile believers can undertake together.

Black sheep author signing off for now.

What Did Jesus Teach About the Sabbath?

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. -Matthew 28:19-20

This is the fourteenth part of my series on what Yeshua (Jesus) taught his Jewish disciples to teach the newly minted Gentile disciples to obey. This is the last entry of this series (yes, I know I've been long-winded) and after this, I'll try to come up with some general conclusions about what this all means. Before we get into today's subject, let's review a summary of my previous blog post, What Did Jesus Teach in the Beatitudes:

In a nutshell, Yeshua teaches us to hang on, to keep the faith, to persevere in the face of hardship, for although life in this world now is hard and we suffer, great is our reward in the Kingdom if we stay the course and complete the race. Praiseworthy is the person who obeys Your mitzvos and takes to his heart Your teaching and Your word.

The Sabbath is either the most obvious commandment to understand or the most confusing. In Judaism, Shabbos observance is a lovely and sacred weekly event, when everyone puts down their labors and strife and acknowledges the God of Creation. Christianity seems to be a little more confused on the Sabbath or at least the Jewish interpretation of it. On the one hand, Jewish Shabbat observance seems an unnecessary chore of "you can't do this" when after all, Jesus freed us from the law. On the other hand, they say that Sunday, the Lord's Day, has replaced the Shabbat, and is a day on which a special Sunday worship traditionally occurs, along with Sunday brunch, mowing the lawn, and a few rounds of golf. The freedom of the Lord's Day. I'm sorry if a sound a bit "snarky", but Christianity did itself and we Gentiles a great disservice by eliminating the loveliness and holiness of the Sabbath.

But what did Jesus teach about the Sabbath?

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread - which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." -Matthew 12:1-8

This is one of two lessons Yeshua teaches about the Sabbath according to Matthew, although there are additional lessons in other Gospels. In this saying, from a Christian point of view, it's easy to read into Yeshua's words and believe he's saying it's OK to do away with the Sabbath and yet remain innocent. Did Yeshua say that he and his disciples just canceled the Sabbath? What would cause him to issue such a reversal over the various parts of the Torah and the Prophets commanding Shabbat observance? What did he really say?

What does David eating the Priest's bread, Priests performing their sacred duty on the Shabbat, and Yeshua and his disciples gleaning and eating on Shabbat have in common? Were they all lawless and disrespectful of God's laws?

Yeshua quotes the Prophet Hosea as part of the answer: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6). This is somewhat the same message as we see here:

"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." -Mark 12:32-33

This is a response to Yeshua and his interpretation of the two greatest commandments by one of the Torah teachers and the teacher seems to say that the core of the Torah isn't in the raw mechanics of obedience but the intent and the heart behind obedience. It doesn't make spirit vs action mutually exclusive terms, but rather, two bookends containing the entire Torah between them.

While some of the Pharisees were criticizing Yeshua and his disciples for gleaning for food (working) on the Sabbath, they were emphasizing the mechanics of Shabbat observance without taking into consideration the intent of the Shabbat. Yeshua also seems to be saying that, if you have to make a decision between the two, it's better to "err" on the side of mercy. David, the Priesthood, and Yeshua's disciples were all innocent of any violation of the Sabbath.

Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. -Matthew 12:9-14

Yeshua could have waited 24 hours to heal this guy. He wasn't like a sheep in a pit, who would certainly suffer and might even die if left there until the Shabbat ended. The guy probably lived with that shriveled hand for years. Another day wouldn't have made much difference. Yeshua was trying to make a point:

How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. -Matthew 12:12

I doubt all this means that God was reversing traditional Shabbat observance. I doubt Yeshua is saying we need to cancel our worship and our prayers so that we can all go out and perform acts of good that could have waited until the next day or that we could have done the previous day. Remember, he was making a point to an audience that needed to hear a specific message.

I do believe Yeshua's lesson means we need to think about our Shabbat observance. Are we observing the Shabbat as a matter of robotic mechanics, going through the motions like so many wind-up toy dolls and criticizing anyone who operates outside of our rigid paradigm, or are we observing the Shabbat in the Spirit of the Shabbat, as God originally designed it to be?

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. -Genesis 2:2-3

It's pretty hard to get past the Genesis 2 establishment of the Shabbat and interpret it as a "Jewish" observance, since it's clear here that the seventh day was made holy since the days of Adam. Resting on the seventh day is a demonstration and declaration of God as the God of all Creation. Here's another example:

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. -Exodus 20:8-11

While Moses is specifically addressing the Children of Israel as well as the Gentile mixed multitude who also accepted the Torah at Sinai, the Shabbat is still defined by the holiness of the seventh day after creation. We do see a change in the following, however:

"Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day. -Deuteronomy 5:12-15

At the banks of the Jordan, on the threshold of the promise fulfilled, Moses presents the commandment to keep the Sabbath to the children of the slaves who came out of Egypt as a commemoration of the release from bondage. Is this when God made the Sabbath a fully Jewish event? Does God think in terms of either/or?

Westerners sometimes get accused of being too locked into linear thinking. We categorize and pigeon-hole everything and do our level best to eliminate ambiguity and double-meaning. Computers "think" in binary and apparently, so do we. But I've been told that Hebraic thought is more global and that themes, relationships, and connections are interwoven into a complex and sometimes paradoxical tapestry. It's sometimes explained this way:

When you come to a fork in the road, take it. -Yogi Berra

While Berra never meant for his words to hold any significant philosophical meaning, in this case, I think they do. I think that the Sabbath can both be a special commemoration for the Jews of their release from slavery in Egypt and a commemoration for all humanity that God is the God of Creation and is the God of all of us.

"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD. -Isaiah 66:22-23

We light the Sabbath candles in my home every Friday evening for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because my wife is Jewish. I have no problem seeing two overlapping meanings to Shabbat observance for Jews and for Gentiles, just like there is in my family, and in fact, it seems to be one of those commandments that has an overarching application to the entire human race.

Conclusion: What did Jesus teach about the Sabbath that Jewish and Gentile disciples are to obey?

1. The mechanics of Sabbath observance and the spirit of Sabbath observance are both important.
2. If you are in a situation where you must choose between mechanics and spirit, err on the side of the spirit and intent of Sabbath.
3. There are some jobs and activities that must be done, even on the Sabbath, yet anyone doing them is considered blameless of a violation of the Sabbath.
4. Helping a person on the Sabbath isn't wrong, even if they could have waited until the next day.

I'll add, even though Yeshua didn't teach this specifically, that the Sabbath can have a special meaning for the Jewish people in relation to their release from Egyptian slavery and still have a general meaning and application to everyone else.

This series will end with my next entry in which I'll try to summarize my all of my conclusions. Beyond that, there are a few ways I can go.

There have been a lot of comments on Judah Gabriel's blog post 7 Conclusions on Keeping God's Commandments, which was Judah's commentary on my blog entry What Did Jesus Teach About the Torah, Part 1. It would certainly be appropriate if I blogged on everyone's thoughts and tried to respond by "tightening up" my conclusions from that article.

I chose the book of Matthew for this series because it was the Gospel written specifically for a Jewish audience, so if any set of teachings could be said to be specifically Jewish, they would be found in Matthew's writings. Matthew is also the only Gospel writer that records "the Great Commission" which is the foundation of this series. Does that mean Yeshua didn't provide any fundamentally different or additionally illuminating teachings in Mark, Luke, and John? Exploring the other Gospels is an option.

All that said, it seems inevitable that I'll need to visit the Apostolic scriptures more specifically than I already have. While none of the apostles can override Yeshua's teachings, they can add dimension and expand the meaning of our understanding of what Yeshua taught. Also, the development of the early "church" and the record of how (or if) Gentile disciples were integrated into Jewish synagogue worship could help show us a picture, or at least a hint, of how (or if) Torah observance was managed by the Gentiles.

Next time: the conclusion of conclusions.