Antinomianism (Wikipedia) is
defined as a departing of "The Law",
whether it be the inaccurately* termed "Mosaic" law (that
being "The Law" of YHVH) or "The
Law" of man.
What is "The Law" of YHVH?
"The Law(s)" of
YHVH is (are) those
commandments and statutes that YHVH outlined in the Old Testament
of the Bible, otherwise referred to as Torah or "The
5 Books of Moses". Jewish law restricts them to 613 Mitzvot (precepts
or commandments), and lists them,
and oftentimes misinterprets them. The 613 are divided into
either a “positive mitzvoth” or a “negative
mitzvoth”, along with an extra three that include murder,
idolatry, and forbidden sexual relations. This list has its
beginnings in the Jewish Babylonian Talmud.
“Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded
and debated "The Law" (that
is, the Hebrew Bible) and discussed
the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other
than the Biblical books themselves),
though some may have made private notes (megillot
setarim), for example of court decisions.
This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the
result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the
year 70 C.E. and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and
legal norms. As the Rabbis were required to face a new reality
- mainly Judaism without a Temple (to
serve as the center of teaching and study) and
Judea without autonomy - there was a flurry of legal discourse
and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained.
It is during this period that Rabbinic discourse began to be
recorded in writing. The earliest recorded oral law may have
been of the midrashic form, in which halakhic discussion is
structured as exegetical commentary on the Pentateuch. But
an alternative form, organized by subject matter instead of
by biblical verse, became dominant about the year 200 C.E.,
when Rabbi Judah haNasi redacted the Mishnah (????).” (Wikipedia:
Talmud)
The list was later defined by Maimonides.
Maimonides
(1135–1204), Jewish philosopher and rabbinic scholar,
born in Spain; born Moses ben Maimon. His Guide for the
Perplexed (1190) attempts to reconcile Talmudic scripture
with the philosophy of Aristotle.
Note: "The
Law(s)" written
by YHVH through Moses are far more than the 613 Mitzvot,
or the "Ten Commandments." To follow them
by "The Letter" of "The Law" rather than "The
Intent" is called legalism.
Legalism is something YHVH never intended for HIS laws.
The History of Judaism: The
apostasy of the Rabbinical Writings
Judaism isn't a religion that began with the Exodus, as some
believe, it is much newer than that, even as recent
as about 2,000 years old, having its beginnings shortly before
the time of Messiah Y'Shua. Of course, at that time, it wasn't
called Orthodox Judaism. It was called Phariseeism and Saducceeism,
both groups Y'Shua hated. These two groups took "The Law",
and made it into a set of "rules" that needed to
be followed by the LETTER of "The Law", even going
as far as to make additions to "The Law" by
including traditions that are not commanded by YHVH,
as exposed below.
Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing soever I (YHVH) command you, observe to
do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
The Five Principles
of Phariseeism (according
to Nehemiah Gordon)
1. There are two Torahs.
A.The Written Torah (5
books of Moses).
1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy
B.“Oral” Torah (The
Talmud)
1. Mishnah
2. Jerusalem Talmud
3. Babylonian Talmud
4. Midrash
2. Rabbis have “absolute” authority.
YHVH's authority is in heaven and not on
earth, therefore MAN has the authority to change, interpret
and amend the Tanakh (Torah,
the Prophets, and the Writings; the Hebrew Scriptures.).
3. Midrashic Interpretation (not
contextual, linguistic, historical or cultural)
The context, linguistics, historical or cultural
aspects of any given word or verse are not taken into consideration
when interpreting the Bible.
4. Sanctified Traditions (customs
becoming law; i.e. kippah, ritual hand washing, black clothing,
ritual praying, etc.)
Traditions or customs found acceptable to
the Rabbinical Authorities are added into "The Law" and
made as law, even if they have no basis in the Tanakh.
5. Commandments of Men or “Takanot”
An enactment by the Rabbis in order to uphold (in
their opinion only) the spirit
of the Torah's laws.
All of this began in 20 C.E., and not with
Moshe (Moses).
A Brief History of
Christianity: Blasphemous
Doctrines
Christianity is not a religion that had it's beginnings
with The True Messiah (Y'Shua),
as most believe, it is much newer version of a much older religion
than that. Christianity (The
Title) didn't begin until after the
Nicene Creed was developed in 325 C.E.; a blasphemous doctrine
that departed almost entirely from what Messiah Y'Shua taught,
namely on key points he made. The "Roman Church Fathers" even
RENAMED Messiah Y'Shua as "Jesus Christ", thereby
removing the “Jewish-ness” from their newly created “savior”.
Indeed, Christianity revolves around this manmade man, "Jesus
Christ," who was given a new identity, that isn't even
a shadow of who Messiah Y'Shua truly WAS. When it came to "The
Law", the early "Roman Church Fathers" decided
that it should be naught, thereby "nailing it to the cross" and
telling their followers that they didn't need to follow ANY
of "The Law", selling cheapened salvation to them
at a high price. This group TOOK AWAY from "The Law",
and this taking away is called antinomianism,
and is just as wrong as the adding to "The Law" by
modern Judaism (Phariseeism).
Definition: Strong’s
#G0459 Anomos
1. Destitute of (the Mosaic) law
A. Of the
Gentiles
2. Departing from "The Law",
a violator of "The Law", lawless, wicked
Mark 15:28
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was
numbered with the transgressors.
Luke 22:37
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be
accomplished in me, And he was reckoned amongst the transgressors:
for the things concerning me have an end.
Acts 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of YHVH, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified
and slain:
1 Corinthians 9:21
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not
without law to YHVH, but under "The Law" to Messiah,)
that I might gain them that are without law.
1 Timothy 1:9
Knowing this, that "The Law" is not made for a
righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the
ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers
of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
2 Peter 2:8
(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and
hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their
unlawful deeds;)
“In theology, is the idea that members of a particular
religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of
ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is
the polar opposite of legalism, which is the notion
that obedience to a code of (Jewish) religious
law is necessary for salvation.” However, Christianity
has unwittingly created their own set of rules for
salvation (aka "The
Roman Road to Salvation").
A Brief History of
Antinomianism:
The Tanakh:
The two different types of law described in the Tanakh are
The Mosaic Law and The Davidic Law. The Mosaic Law being the
vows themselves, and Davidic being the intention behind
the vows (which we
know and teach as SELF-less love).
The New Testament or Apostolic Epistles:
Christianity states that, Paul of Tarsus, in his Letters, claims
several times that believers are saved by the unearned grace
of YHVH, and not by our own good works, "lest anyone should
boast", and placed emphasis on orthodoxy (right
belief) rather than orthopraxy (right
practice). However, we know this
to be untrue, as Paul himself upheld the Spirit of "The
Law". No one saved by YHWH should boast because the
Spirit was gifted even though it was undeserved, not because
of a lack or abundance of good works. The soteriology (the
study of salvation) of Paul's statements
in this matter has always been a matter of dispute; the ancient
Gnostics interpreted Paul to be referring to the manner in
which embarking on a path to enlightenment ultimately leads
to enlightenment, which was their idea of what constituted
salvation. In what has become the modern mainstream Christian
orthodoxy, however, this is interpreted as a reference to salvation
simply by believing that Christianity is valid (it
is NOT); Christianity is antinomianism
in its most impure form. See also New
Perspective on Paul.
Paul used the term freedom in Messiah, for example, Galatians
2:4, and it is clear that some (mistakenly) understood
this to mean lawlessness (i.e.
not obeying Mosaic Law). For example,
in Acts 18:12-16 Paul is accused of "persuading .. people
to worship YHVH in ways contrary to "The Law"" and
in Acts 21:21 .
James "The Just" explained his situation to
Paul:
"They have been told about you that you teach all the
Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that
you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe
the customs." (NRSV).
Note: Of
course, we know this to be inaccurate, as James was simply
explaining to Paul what the Jerusalem church thought. Of
course, Paul wasn't doing any such thing. He was encouraging
the Gentiles to observe "The Law", but with the
proper Spiritual INTENT, which is circumcision of the heart;
physical circumcision was merely a foreshadow of this INTENT.
The Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers
notes:
"Paul, on the other hand,
not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law,
as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles,
but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1
Corinthians 9:20). Thus, shortly after
he circumcised Timothy (Acts
16:1-3), he was in the very act of observing
the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (21:26
sqq.)." Yet another error by the
catholic church found in their "doublespeak".
The Tübingen school of historians, founded by F. C. Baur,
holds that in Early Christianity, there was conflict between
Pauline Christianity and the Jerusalem Church led by James
the Just, Simon Peter, and John the Apostle, the so-called "Jewish
Christians" although in many places Paul writes that he
was an observant Jew, and that True Worshippers should "Uphold
The Law" (Romans
3:31).
Galatians 2:14 But
when I saw that they were not straightforward about the
truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If
you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not
as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
. . . ,
part of the "Incident at Antioch", Paul publicly
accused Peter of judaizing.
Note: Paul,
of course, wasn't accusing Peter of anything, except being
hypocritical.
Even so, he does go on
to say that sins remain sins, and upholds by several examples
the kind of behavior that their opinion the church should not
tolerate. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 he cites Y'Shua's
teaching on divorce ("not
I but the Lord") and does not reject
it, but goes on to proclaim his own teaching ("I,
not the Lord"), an extended counsel
regarding a specific situation which some interpret as not
in conflict with what the Lord said.
Note: There
was no conflict between the two, as they were both inspired
teachings and were consistent with one another – meaning
ALIKE in righteousness.
The Epistle of James, in contrast,
states that our good works justify before men our faith after
salvation and we are to obey "The Law" of YHWH, that
a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone,
that faith without works is dead (James
2:14–26). Historically, the presence
of this statement has been difficult for Protestants to rectify
with their belief in salvation by faith alone. Martin Luther
even suggested that the Epistle might be a forgery, and relegated
it to an appendix in his Bible (although
he later came to accept its canonicity).
Note: Faith
without works is dead, just as works without faith are
dead, they go hand in hand, and must not be separated.
The Torah prescribes the death
penalty for desecrating the Sabbath by working (Exodus
31:14-17). To avoid any possibility of
breaking the Torah commands, the Pharisees formulated strict
interpretations and numerous traditions which they treated
as laws, see Halakha. Y'Shua criticized the Pharisees for this (Mark
7:7-9). The Jewish Encyclopedia article
on Y'Shua notes: "Y'Shua, however, does not appear to
have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this
period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation
existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel
and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity."
Note: Here
we have the birth of modern Judaism (Phariseeism).
In the Gospel of Mark, Y'Shua's disciples were picking
grain for food on a Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). When the Pharisees
challenged Y'Shua over this, he pointed to Biblical precedent
and declared that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man
for the Sabbath". Some claim Y'Shua rejected complete
adherence to the Torah. Most scholars hold that Y'Shua did
not reject "The Law", but directed that it should
be obeyed in context. e.g., E. P. Sanders notes: ". .
. no substantial conflict between Y'Shua and the Pharisees
with regard to Sabbath, food, and purity laws. ... The church
took some while to come to the position that the Sabbath need
not be kept, and it is hard to think that Y'Shua explicitly
said so."
Note: Messiah
was instructing them to keep the Sabbath on its proper
day, but it was the INTENT that mattered. Indeed, man was
made for the Sabbath, as we have come to understand as
a Shadow
of Things to Come.)
In the Gospel of Matthew, Y'Shua
is sometimes portrayed as referring to people he sees as wicked
with the term ergazomenoi ten anomian e.g. Matthew 7:21-23,
Matthew 13:40-43. Due to this negative context the term has
almost always been translated as evildoers, though it literally
means workers of lawlessness. In other words, Matthew appears
to present Y'Shua as equating wickedness with encouraging antinomianism.
Scholars view Matthew as having been written by or for a Jewish
audience, the so-called Jewish Christians. Several scholars
argue that Matthew artificially lessened a claimed rejection
of Jewish law so as not to alienate Matthew's intended audience.
However, Y'Shua called for full adherence to the commandments. (Matthew
5:19-21) He declared: "Do not think
that I have come to abolish "The Law" or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them (to
make replete)." (Matthew
5:17) A parallel verse to Matthew 7:21
is James 1:22.”
Workers of lawlessness
It is interesting to take note of the conflict between those
that keep "The Law", and those who do not with
respect to their individual beginnings.
Early Judaism, by making the laws stricter, was ADDING to "The
Law", while Early Christians, by making "The Law" void
were TAKING away from "The Law". Had either of
these religions been left in the pristine original form, we
would have neither Christianity (christopaganism) nor
modern Judaism (Phariseeism);
however, both deviate from the INTENT of "The Law" itself.
The Intent of "The Law"
Recall this most misunderstood parable from Luke in
which it is clear that those who do not understand are
the same ones that ignore "The Intent".
Luke 16: 19-31.
There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple
and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there
was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his
gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs
which fell from the rich mans table: moreover the dogs came
and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar
died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:
the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift
up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off,
and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham,
have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip
of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented
in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou
in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise
Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art
tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there
is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from
hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would
come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore,
father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them,
lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham
saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them
hear them.
It must be ones "Intent" to Hear and See.
Ezekiel 40:4
And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine (Spiritual) eyes,
and hear with thine (Spiritual) ears,
and set thine
heart (innermost
thoughts) upon all that I shall
shew thee; for to the
intent that I might shew them
unto thee art thou brought hither: declare all that thou
seest to the house of Israel.
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of YHVH is quick, and
powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even
to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints
and marrow, and is a discerner of the
thoughts and intents of
the heart.
Those that don't understand the "Intent
of the Law" either don't want to understand
it (they have no desire
to), or they think that they know
better than YHVH. They have no excuses, as
these things are clearly understood and seen. Mankind
has been given all he needs to grasp this simple concept; even
without a witness, preacher or teacher.
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they
are without excuse:
The INTENTION of "The Law" is far different; in fact, "The
Law" isn't even LAW, per se, but a covenant or vow one
makes with YHVH. It's an agreement. You agree willfully to
follow HIS commandments to the best of your ability because
you love HIM (and you don't expect anything in return – not
for salvation's sake, but for LOVE’s sake). This is no
different than what one agrees to in a marriage agreement.
This is righteous and SELF-less. The whole of "The Law" is
based upon RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Matthew 22:34-40
34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees
to silence, they were gathered together.
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question,
tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in "The Law"?
37 Y'Shua said unto him, Thou shalt LOVE YHVH with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt LOVE thy
neighbor as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all of "The Law" and
the prophets.
Indeed, all "The Law" and
the prophets are based on an "INTENT of LOVE".
This is why we profess that all of "The Commandments" are not
laws at all, but "The
Words of A Marriage Vow" or "Covenant
of Love" with YHVH; for YHVH
seeks an obedient and faithful bride.