Manners and Men

The manner in which we are to walk out our faith with G-d is not for us to decide. When it comes right down to it, we'll always take the path of least resistance, blur the lines, become politically correct, fatally inclusive or, somehow, just mess it all up. Sadly, there are far too many examples of well-meaning denominations that have done this very thing to even mention. On Holocaust Remembrance Day, we could easily reflect on how Church history is rife with examples of man's inability to do what he ought - to love our neighbor as ourselves. Because of the tendencies of our very weak flesh, G-d has provided numerous, solid examples of those we are to pattern our lives after (namely Messiah Yeshua, the disciples & the apostles). They lived out their lives in ways we are to emulate - ways that are completely contrary to how the majority of (modern) believers currently live. I want to mention just a few examples in order to make my point. I'll confine my references to the book of Acts - a foundation of modern teaching & practice - and to the life of Shaul (Paul). Though, to be sure, there are many more, sometimes less obvious examples found throughout scripture from which we could learn.


In Acts 21, there is a very interesting section of scripture that recounts Shaul sponsoring (paying for and accompanying) four men to go to the Temple and offer sacrifices in order to prove that he actually was (after it was widely circulated that he was not) Torah observant. This created a huge problem for the local (non-believing Jews) who mistakenly (21:29) thought that He had brought Gentiles into the Temple, which he hadn't, and develops into Shaul delivering a great speech (to a riotous mob seeking his life) about Yeshua being revealed to him. My point is, rather than going through all of this, wouldn't it have made a ton of sense (and been much safer) for Shaul to just explain to the believing Jews (that asked him to do this in order to prove that he was Torah observant) that none of that Torah stuff was necessary now that Yeshua had come? It certainly would have.

Shaul didn't do that, though. He didn't do it in this instance - he didn't do it ever. In the face of murderous mobs, beatings, imprisonments and violent persecution everywhere he went, he never once denied his keeping of Torah, remaining a Jew (even currently a Pharisee! - Acts 23:6, Phil. 3:5) or fainted in his conviction that believing in Yeshua as Messiah was not mutually exclusive of keeping Torah. He continued to preach in synagogues and challenge his own people, the Jews, by explaining Messiah to them in light of Torah, not in spite of it - and he did all of that because of his firm belief that G-d had in no way cast away His people, Israel, (Romans 11) and that Gentile believers had miraculously and mercifully been grafted in to the Commonwealth of Israel (Romans 11:17-21). He joyfully experienced all the persecution that he's so well-known for because of this; He understood Israel's place in the purposes of G-d, as well as the position of his new, Gentile brothers. Why did he continually make the distinction between the two (even though together we're both "One New Man" - Ephesians 2:11-19)? Because he fully understood that even though we are one in Messiah, and we share a glorious, common future, we still have differing realities and objectives before that glorious age arrives.

Why didn't he just become a Gentile (like Jews are so often expected to do when they accept Yeshua - even though believing Gentiles, strangely, are never expected to stop being German, Spanish or English) and give up all those "outdated" Jewish beliefs and mere shadows of things to come, etc.? It certainly would've made things much easier, prolonged his life, and thereby, extended his ministry, wouldn't it? No, that would be a more recent, modern-day perspective to which the early followers of Yeshua would never have given place or consideration.

Another curiously over-looked, but great example of Shaul's determination to pursue what many would deem "legalistic" is found in Acts 13:42. Here, Shaul & Barnabas are teaching in Antioch at a synagogue on Yom Shabbat - the traditional Jewish Sabbath day service. The thing is, they're teaching about Messiah to an audience of Gentiles. No big deal, right? Well, when the service concludes, the Gentiles beg them to continue teaching on the following Shabbat. Now wait, did Shaul & Barnabas just miss an enormous opportunity to let these guys know that they didn't have to wait a whole week to learn more? Couldn't they just teach these very hungry Gentiles the very next day - on Sunday? Why, for evangelism's sake, did they wait all the way until the next Shabbat to reconvene the teaching? Weren't they afraid they'd lose these guys? Why didn't they or the Gentiles even suggest the possibility of meeting sooner? Why is there not a single mention in any of the many passages about Shaul teaching on Shabbat (Acts 9:20, 14:1, 16:13, 17:1-2,10-11,17, 18:4, 21, etc.), where he takes the opportunity to explain to the audience that they needn't meet on Shabbat (because it has been "done away with") or even the slightest suggestion from anyone that it would be ok for them to meet together on any other day - like Sunday, for example?

Yet another strange occurrence is Shaul's insistence to the believers at Ephesus that he "must, by all means keep the coming Feast in Jerusalem" and leave them, though he wished he could stay. Why did he feel such an obligation to leave (which, remember, would not have been like a brief, modern-day road trip, but a costly, dangerous, multi-day journey) this growing community of believers, that clearly needed him, to observe one command mentioned all the way back in Deuteronomy (16:16)? Further, In Acts 20:6, Shaul waits until after Pesach to leave Philippi. A similar instance, this one about Yom Kippur, is mentioned in Acts 27:9. In Acts 20:16, he hurries back to Jerusalem yet again for Shavuot. And in Acts 21:20, the Jews are all described as believing in Messiah and being "zealous for the law"- highlighting what is unfortunately taught in Christian circles to be a complete contradiction. Also, very interesting.

Finally, in three different places, Acts 24:14, 25:8 and 28:17, Shaul goes to great lengths to explain that he has never done or taught anything that goes against "all the things written in the Law", "written in the Prophets", his people Israel, or the "customs of our fathers".

These few examples should be enough to give most of us pause and inspire a bit of investigation. They, and a few others, were some of the things I started looking into years ago, when I first became aware of noticeable inconsistencies between what I was reading in scripture and what I heard others being taught.

The journey towards the Kingdom of G-d is about holiness (being set apart to G-d - Psalm 4:2-5, 2 Cor. 6:14-16), righteousness (good works, so that others would see them and glorify G-d - Titus 3:8, Matt 5:16), and love, (loving G-d with our whole mind, heart & strength & loving others as ourselves, better understood as considering the needs of others before our own - Romans 13:8, 1 Peter 1:22). This is a tall order for most believers (and completely impossible for those that have not yet exchanged life with Messiah), but thank G-d, He has given us Himself, as the Holy Spirit (to those who obey Him - Acts 5:32), to dwell within us and walk out our faith (in action), through us.

G-d has made available to us complete transformation (not partial, not what we think is best, or how far we want to take it). It is available only on His terms, though - but to absolutely everyone that would believe and call on the Name of His Son, Yeshua with a heart of true repentance (not persuasion, coercion, fleeting emotional excitement, or some other smoke and mirrors) and follow Him unto the deepest depths (or highest heights) of  life (and death) a true talmid.