On this eve of CHANUKAH, I find it fitting to finally begin the series I have been planning to write on the "Doctrine of Salvation" (Soteriology). After all, it was probably during the "Festival/Feast of Lights" that Mirian/Mary heard the angelic being tell her "You shall call His Name Yeshuah (YHVH is Salvation) for He shall yoshia (Save) His people". As we celebrate the Light of the World, it gives me such pleasure and honor to tell the Story of Salvation from a perspective which will hopefully mend at least some of the many broken fences between Christendom and a Hebraic Contextual perspective, during the celebration of His announcement.
There is no easy way to begin a paper on Soteriology which will bring into question all the Theological lessons I've been taught - both those I was taught and are wrong and those which were correct.
As many of you know, my PhD Thesis was focused on First Century Theology and Doctrine. Much of my Bachelor's and even a fair portion of my Master's was pretty much Mainstream Christian teaching. What I discovered, as I transitioned my focus in all of my papers to a more overtly expressed Hebraic Contextual view of Scripture, is much of Christendom is so different from the Olive Tree they are grafted into based on a handful of theological changes which cause them to take a different path from that point forward. We'll discuss this more as we go along. But to start it off I want to give you a tidbit to chew on, even if unconsciously, while you read through this first paper in the series. I had a prof in my Bachelor program who consistently referred to salvation in the following way:
"I am Saved. I am Being Saved. I shall be Saved."
Dean Kurtz
As I began to focus more on the Hebraic Context of Scripture, after learning far better study methods and Pardes (Hebrew acronym which relates to Hermeneutics), I realized just how correct he was. We'll be covering this extensively.
Nowadays, the concept of Salvation is presented in a way that is frankly, too simplistic. I know Shaul says we overlook the simplicity of the Gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-15). But the Gospel is NOT the "Doctrine of Salvation". It is the story of our Savior. His birth, life, ministry, substitutionary and sacrificial death, and His resurrection. Inside this story are the components of salvation, but salvation itself and the Gospel are not one and the same. We often teach a "sinner's prayer" and say that if someone repeats it, they are "saved". But are they? If so, for how long? At what point does Holiness begin to matter? What about coming out from amongst the world? If they don't are they still saved? For how long? If we are totally honest with ourselves, we have to accept that this simplistic view of salvation is a shallow pool of water that grows stagnant very quickly in this world.
Soteriology is just one of many areas of Theological study.
Perhaps a good place to begin is with an "Official" definition of Soteriology so we can put to bed any doubts that I am attempting to make a simple thing complicated:
Oxford Dictionary
so¡te¡ri¡ol¡o¡gy
/sĹËterÄËälÉjÄ/
Learn to pronounce
noun: soteriology
the doctrine of salvation.
Origin: mid 19th century from Greek sĹtÄria âsalvationâ + -logy (the study of).
How then does something so easily defined become a topic that is difficult to explain? There are many facets to Soteriology which we'll discuss in detail as we unpack this. Unfortunately, it isn't something explained in a single sentence even though it can be defined as such. The question really comes down to "What is 'Salvation' ".
The "Doctrine of Salvation" has been, in the not too distant past, a subject of much debate. Most Christian theologians, pastors, evangelists, and of course the parishioners/congregants who made up assemblies fell into one of two soteriological camps:
Calvinism
Arminianism
I suppose we could add Universalism, Relativism, and a handful of others, but those are honestly pretty much offshoots of the "Big Two" and contain elements of one or both mesh-mashed with a lot of academic attempts to interpret Scripture without proper context in accordance with sound hermeneutics. You'll recall from several of my previous articles that this is called Eisegesis, which tends to not be a hermeneutically sound method of dividing Scripture. We'll likely touch on those some as we go, but the basis of this series is to examine Soteriology from the perspective of the symbology and dial in on the context we find in the Hebrew Scriptures (O.T.) and how they are fulfilled in the Apostolic Writings (N.T.).
NOTE: As the series unfolds we'll look more closely at the similarities and differences in the two primary camps of theology above.
Augustine of Hippo wrote:
While Augustine fully rejected the premise of the heretic Marcion (đđź Link to First Marcion Blog), he nevertheless continued to use the Marcionite (đđź Link to Second Marcion Blog) separation of "Old" and "New" Testaments. It is perhaps the single greatest error in Christian History to make the decision(s) to keep any portion of the teachings of Marcion.
I've covered his work extensively, and have not yet revealed even half of what Tertullian said, in his work "Against Marcion" which had 5 Volumes! Not to mention the volumes written by Hippolytus ("Against Heresies"), Irenaeus ("Refutation of all Heresies"), and others. Why is all this so important? It's simple really. The theology of Marcion created a separation that never existed before in the greater Body of Messiah. The word "church" was not in use yet (see my article on the word Church for more details) and no one knew about an "Old" and "New" Testament. It was simply all viewed as inspired Scripture. The enemy seized an opportunity to put subversive teaching into the fledgling but bold Body of Messiah in order to distort the understanding of the larger Body which would most certainly emerge from the efforts of the many Holy Spirit emboldened disciples being made in the known world.
We really should try to recognize the Apostolic Writings we have, are in a way, based on the orders from the Jerusalem Council which we find a record of in Acts 15.
The 'Jerusalem Council' had been convened primarily over the question of whether or not Gentile Converts to Messiah must first go through the process of circumcision before being considered members of the Body. In modern Western culture, we miss what this REALLY/ACTUALLY means. You see, getting circumcised wasn't just an initiation into a club. It wasn't used for any other reason other than converting to Orthodox Judaism, but then it seems Orthodox Judaism was the only Judaism of that day. It took many months of study and graduated exposure to the Judaic culture to proselytize into Judaism. Still, there is a theory among some in the church that seeking to obey the whole of Scripture and teaching others how, even while using Yeshua as the example, is called Judaizing.
Let's look at what Judaizing really is...
Ju¡da¡ize
/ËjoÍodÄÄŤz,ËjoÍodÄËÄŤz/ verb gerund or present participle: Judaizing
make Jewish; convert to Judaism. "their cultures were gradually Judaized"
follow Jewish customs or religious rites. "the âconversosâ were engaged in Judaizing"
PLEASE NOTICE IT SAYS CUSTOMS, NOT SCRIPTURE - THEY ARE NOT THE SAME
Even Yeshua rebuked the religious leaders for adhering to their customs more than the Torah
It's a fact that we don't find this word being used much in antiquity to describe the work of Messianics as they spread the Gospel, but sadly it is very much a common belief among those in the modern Church. It should be noted here that the term Messianic is a pretty modern word to describe "Jews" who accept Yeshua as Messiah. In the time of Acts 15 they self-identified as "Followers of the Way", later as the Nezterim, and even later still as the Albigenses, Waldensians, and other such "Messianic" groups throughout Europe and the world.
Now... back to Acts 15 so you can see why this is an important and landmark turn of events.
Act 15:1Â
"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."
Notice something odd about the demand? They were being told they had to be circumcised "after the manner of Moses". Why after that manner? Isn't this just a surgical procedure? What does Moses have to do with it? In our vernacular, they were being told they had to proselytize to Judaism before they could become believers in Messiah. After all, He did say He came for the lost sheep of Israel**, which would include the "foreigner/sojourner among" them according to Torah. {You'll see the foreigner/sojourner among you a lot in Torah.} So in the minds of these young "Jewish" converts having just been left to spread the enormous news of a risen Savior, they were doing what they thought all that meant. You see, few of them were experts in Torah though there were others like Shaul, so they were doing what they could with what they knew. Not so different than when modern Christians encourage new converts to learn to share their testimony with friends and families to help them "come out from among" the world (2 Corinthians 6:17). It's a new day and a dividing line into their new life in Christ - isn't it?
**Matthew 15:24Â
"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."Â
The above could be why people in the church have mistakenly believed that teaching people to recognize the Hebraic Context of the whole of Scripture is Judaizing. It's inaccurate and based on a faulty understanding of what Judaizing really is.
If we continue in the narrative of Acts 15 there is a very different storyline that begins to emerge.
Imagine being one of God's Chosen People and knowing Messiah had said what He did in Matthew 15:24, and knowing He was speaking to a Gentile woman who "was living among them" (remember the foreigner/sojourner?) but not fully understanding the application of Torah and its demands after Messiah had come and gone. Would you have drawn a different conclusion?
What I am getting at is this. The early followers of Messiah Yeshua did the best they could with what they had as they too grew in understanding. But in our current modern society, when we look back at their discourse in Acts 15 we tend to see the only things which our Western filters allow us to see. We do a lot of armchair quarterbacking. Such as, "they were trying to Judaize these people who were already Christians who believed on Jesus". But we really have to take the whole story into consideration first. The mistake we often make in regard to reading and studying Scripture is that we try to gain context of the Bible Scripture by Scripture in the place of, or instead of along with, the context of the totality of a passage, chapter, book, etc. This is why the article on Bible Study Methods is so important. Using the Concentric Contextual Search Method explained in that blog, let's see what else is revealed in Acts Chapter 15.
After verse 1 we find Shaul (Paul) and Bar'Nabba (means son of Nabba - "Barnabas") traveling back to Jerusalem after having a bit of a fall out with some leaders who'd come from Judea teaching that circumcision was necessary BEFORE "salvation". Along the way, they stopped in a few places to fellowship with believers and give a testimony of what YeHoVaH had been doing among the Gentiles. The fellow believers were astounded and really excited to hear about it. Can you see the division already happening between some leaders and those who were not educated in Torah? This is proof positive of a few things... While there were definitely several Pharisees, experts in Torah, involved in the early days of the Body of Messiah (confirmed in verse 5), there were also many Israeli/Jewish believers who were not already so fully trained in the Torah. So while one group petitioned for Torah Observance and Circumcision before conversion (a lengthy process), the others simply rejoiced at conversions. Before we get all excited about the 'freedom' to simply rejoice over the conversions, however, we need to think a bit... We need to ask ourselves 'where is this going?'. Not from our own predetermined views based on our own religious training, but from a childlike innocent perspective that is prepared to receive whatever the story is actually tells us in its proper context. This is how we miss many of the "little foxes" and our theology gets spoiled by the influences of those like Marcion whose heresy is still quite prevalent in the Church.
After all, there is usually a very good reason why Scripture mentions both sides of a difficult situation or conversation. We just have to be willing to watch for it while being willing and able to turn off our filters.
Below is a screenshot from a PowerPoint containing Marcion's idea of Soteriology, it is also part of my two articles on Marcion. I'd recommend spending a few minutes prayerfully searching it over to determine if perhaps any of his heresy has been included in your spiritual upbringing and become part of your own filters. I know it (and other heresy) was part of my filters during the early parts of my 39 years as a believer, I have yet to meet one Christian who hasn't had influences from his teaching(s).
Marcion also created a "Bible of the 'New Testament Church' ", as he called it and his organization. His "Bible" did not include the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament") or the Gospels except Luke (minus the first 4 chapters). He wrote a Gospel of his own which included his theology he derived from his misunderstanding of the Epistles of Paul. Further, those epistles were taken out of context due to Marcion's lack of knowledge of the Hebrew Scripture. To fully understand Paul, you have to have a reasonably strong grasp of Torah and the correct context of the "Old" and "New" Covenants of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. I'll be detailing those a bit more throughout this series, but if you read any of my recent work you'll see I refer to it often.
I encourage you to use this resource đđźNew Adventđđź; type Marcion into the search module then scroll down past all the ads. There you will find a plethora of resources to check my work. The early "Church Fathers", as they are now known, all condemned Marcion's view and it isn't until the blending of what appears to be Marcionite Christianity and elements of Paganism that we find the Church's view beginning to align with Marcion's Theology and it has remained so, to varying degrees, ever since.
As the story in Acts 15 continues, Shaul and Bar-Nabba make it to Jerusalem. In verse 5 the discussion comes to a head:
Acts 15:5
"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."Â
This is where the rubber meets the road and then the road splits (between Christendom and First Century Messianism) and makes two new roads! đ
One new road leads many to believe the fact that the Pharisees get involved definitively means there MUST BE JUDAIZING going on.
âđźâđź That is in caps to emphasize how passionate this view often is, not to be sarcastic or rude.
But the Pharisees who believe in Messiah don't really get their way, or do they? Again, we have to be able to shed our previous instruction and look at this through innocent and untrained eyes to really find the context.
Peter "jumps to the rescue", in verses 8-11. It's just like him too, remember the Garden of Gethsemane? It wasn't exactly helpful when Peter sliced the ear off of the Temple guard. This shows he tends to leap first and ask questions later. I propose that is exactly what happened here. As evidenced by the next events.
Acts 15:8-11 (Peter's Discourse)
"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."
NOTE: A future part in this series will come back to Peter's statement "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." There is gold right there and we're going to dig it out.
Peter mentions a yoke upon the neck of the new converts which the forefathers nor the Apostles were able to bear. In response to the comment that the new converts should be circumcised and commanded to keep the Law of Moses. It seems obvious he was referring to Torah, doesn't it? It would except for then the decision they came to at the leading of Ya'akov (James) contradicts this idea. So one of two things are happening here. Either Peter is saying that the lengthy conversion to Judaism isn't acceptable because they would then not only be forced to follow Torah but also the 4,000-7,000 takkanot (rabbinic laws that had been added to Torah) and THAT is burden to great to bear, OR he was advocating to let them live footloose and fancy-free without the basis for holiness the Apostles themselves taught to be the standard for righteousness - the Torah. Now, I am not trying to be sarcastic in that last statement, I am trying to emphasize that everywhere we find any mention of righteousness or holiness AND how to live by them, it is a repeat of some standard already mentioned in Torah. There are 280+ direct quotes to the Torah in the Apostolic Writings, plus countless references nuanced within the texts but most of these are paraphrased in the Greek so more difficult to account for with any absolute certainty.
That other new road, I mentioned above, causes people to continue reading within a chapter or book in order to discover what comes next. This is also the kind of thing that separates the Hebraic Context of what is happening from the standard Orthodox (generally accepted) Christian perspective. When we continue in Acts Chapter 15, we find the debate becoming more of a discussion. In verses 20-21 Ya'akov (James), the half brother of Yeshua, who seems to have been the leading Elder of the Jerusalem congregation, steps in with the voice of reason. Quoting Yeshua and including the Gentiles, James makes a compelling argument with which he ended the following:
Acts 15:20 & 21
"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."Â
We need to examine this closely.
Most people don't even realize each of the 4 Rules anove is from some specific part of the Torah.
1. Abstain from the pollution of idols
Leviticus 17:7-9
"And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations. And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the LORD; even that man shall be cut off from among his people."
2. Abstain from fornication (any and all unacceptable sexual behavior)
Leviticus 18:6-24
"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. ⌠Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:"
3. Abstain from anything strangled - this is about animals being eaten after being harvested/slaughtered by any means that does not take its life with reverence to the sacrifice of its life AND without properly draining the blood. Something most won't readily understand in today's culture; apparently, the Gentile Converts in Acts 15 didn't either.
Leviticus 17:13
"And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust."
4. Abstain from consuming blood
Leviticus 17:10-12
"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood."
"James" decides on a compromise which will allow the new believers to come into Body exactly as it was Planned by Abba. I believe his intervention was absolutely led by Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) and THAT is why we are shown both sides of this debate. The one presented by the Pharisees was extreme in one direction, the other which it appears Peter supports was extreme in the other direction.
It can be a difficult trek from mainstream Christian Theology to an acceptance of all the teaching of Scripture and learning to apply them in the "New Covenant" of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. So I'll give you a synopsis here. Reading the entire discourse in both of those chapters will really help you to see this more clearly. BOTH accounts state that the New Covenant is really a Renewed Covenant. How can I be certain of this?
YHVH is a God of perfection, He doesn't mess anything up. Neither did He free slaves from the Egyptians to bring them into the desert and make them slaves to His Law. That simply is not the character of YeHoVaH. If He is Grace, Love, and Mercy in the Apostolic Writings then He is in the Hebrew Scriptures also, contrary to Christendom's Marcionist Theology. He never changes, neither is there a shadow cast in a different direction because He changed course or direction (loosely paraphrasing James 1:17).
We can really see New as a synonym for Renewed with the method God Himself invented timekeeping. From sunset to sunset is one day, not from midnight to midnight. Every 28 days there is a "New Moon" in other words in the last couple of days in this cycle the moon tends to disappear completely. Then when the "New Moon" appears it is as a small sliver and grows in the first 14 days of the cycle to a Full Moon then decreases as we see less and less of it until it disappears for the cycle to repeat.
In the Hebraic Context of this event, it is called Rosh Chodesh or "New Moon". So which is it - New or Renewed? Well, this is where they are synonymous. It's a new cycle of the moon, but it's the same moon. It hasn't changed, it is still the same moon, but we are seeing it Renewed just like we are when we accept Messiah. We are the "New" in the New Covenant. As Jews, we have a "New" application for Torah. As Gentiles, we are a "New" addition to the Covenant People by way of the spirit of adoption (Romans 8:17) and having been grafted in (Romans 11:11-31). We don't change our bodies when we accept Messiah and we aren't all instantly healed of all sicknesses yet "Behold all things are made new" (2 Corinthians 5:17)... another example of the relativity of "new" and "renewed". In the very same way, the Covenant was Renewed with New applications and New people, but overall UnChanged. I'll cover more on the New Applications in a future edition of this series.
This first part in the series on Soteriology lays a solid foundation for us to now get into understanding what salvation and being born again really is in the next article in the series. Understanding the differences in how the early believers were taught helps us to better become the kind of powerhouse followers who operated in great exploits against the kingdom of darkness that they were. To do what "Jesus" did, we have to do what "Jesus" did.
We ARE "saved by grace through faith". More on that in upcoming segments. But grace isn't cheap even when it's free. The lazy grace that has invaded to Body of Messiah says come as you are but forgets to say "You have to let Him change you". Yes, JESUS + NOTHING is ENOUGH, to get us into the Kingdom, by the spirit of adoption. But to be taken into a family you have to mold into the lifestyle of that family or, even/especially in your own mind, you will remain an outsider - separated just like Marcion the heretic taught. To be grafted into a tree, the tree and the grafted shoot have to be compatible or the graft fails, and sometimes both die. To live in a Kingdom, you have to submit to that Kingdom's Rules/Laws/Instructions for Living in their Kingdom.
Revelation 14:12Â "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and have faith in Jesus."
In the very last book of Scripture, we find John pointing out that those who endured to the end, those who were all martyrs, kept God's mitzvot (commands) and had faith in Jesus/Yeshua.
After giving the Gentiles the 4 Starter Torah Mitzvot/Rules, the very next statement Ya'akov/James made is paramount. especially when added to his intent to write letters to them. It kind of seems this may have spawned the idea which led to all of the epistles!
James said, "For [Moses] of old-time [hath in every city them that preach him], being read in the synagogues [every sabbath day]." đđź If you didn't already, try reading just the bold words in brackets and see if it makes it more clear. They were encouraging the Gentile converts to go to their local synagogue especially on the Sabbath (7th Day of the Week) in accordance with the Torah to learn from the people who preach/teach what Moses wrote. What did Moses write? Moses wrote the Torah.
So did the Pharisees get their way? Absolutely not, at least not totally. Did the Gentile believers convert to Judaism then accept Messiah? NOPE. The Pharisees expected Gentile Followers to Judaize - convert to Judaism (and that's all Judaizing is) - before they could accept Messiah (which is not Judaizing). That would have made them subject to all the 613 (by my count 621) mitzvot (commands) that applied to them individually. Let's remember that some mitzvot were only applicable to men, some only to women, some only to Levites or Aaronic priests, etc. So then why did Peter say they could not bear the load and neither could their ancestors when he spoke up earlier in Acts 15? For a few more reasons besides those I gave above, 1 of which Yeshua/Jesus Himself brought up.
Luke 11:46Â
"And he said, A curse is on you, teachers of the law! for while other men are crushed under the weight of the [rules you make] for them, you yourselves do not put so much as one finger to [help]them." emphasis and bracket inserted for clarity
Remember, the rules they made up from the time Moses wrote Torah until Yeshua came in the flesh was between 4,000 and 7,000 additional takkanot (rabbinic laws added to Torah). This sentiment is seen in Matthew as well. Matthew actually gives us a Cultural Context for why Yeshua said it.
Matthew 23:4-7Â
"For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all [their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi]." brackets and underline added to show the cultural relevance
How and why do the brackets and underlining show us the cultural relevance to what He was saving? Some of those are the add-ons to Torah which can be seen when we look at both the accounts of Matthew and Luke. NONE of those things are a part of the Covenant "Old" or "New". They are the traditions of the sages and were ritually added, which is why they became burdens upon the people that the religious leaders had no power or authority to help the people carry. In contrast, Scripture clearly states in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 that in the "New Covenant" HE (YHVH Himself) would write His Torah upon our hearts and minds - this is His part of the New in the Renewed Covenant. It is no longer the outward religion the people demanded at Mt. Horeb when God offered to make them each priests with individual access to Him. He is now able to do this through Messiah and the indwelling of Holy Spirit who Ezekiel said would empower us to Keep Torah.
Ezekiel 36:27
"...because I will put my Spirit in you and make you eager to obey my laws and teachings."
So, IF we are born again, THEN we WANT to live by His standard and it is the modern traditions of men, based on the heresy of Marcion and others, which tells us this is contrary to Scripture.
Closing this first part of the series on Soteriology, and after laying the foundation needed (as mentioned above); I suppose it's fair to ask "What does all this have to do with salvation?".
It's a pretty universally known principle, which has already been mentioned, that coming to Christ in repentance is all that is needed according to Christian Orthodoxy. What is not so commonly expressed, is this is just a beginning. Scripture also makes it clear that without holiness no one will see God. But our simplistic view of being born again has left us with a shallow pool of information on how to walk in that newly found intimacy with the Father. To better understand the nature of "salvation", and can we lose it, are we predestined, what is Biblical Holiness, etc we need to know what is meant by the many synonyms for "being saved" found throughout Scripture. We will begin that in the next article.
In a nutshell and short recapping of the above, even the First Century Apostles seemed to struggle some with how this all fits together - at first. We see how they came together in Acts 15 and debated theology (what we choose to believe about God from study) and doctrine (what we do based on what we believe about God) concerning Soteriology. It isn't then much of a stretch of the imagination that there are still going to be debates about it now.
The real issue is learning to disconnect ourselves from the Marcionist and other errant theology we've been handed and get back to what was really being said. IF we can do that, then frankly there is nothing to debate. If we continue to hold to our Marcionist, anti-Semmitic, views of Scripture and the separation of the "Old" and "New" we will continue to miss the continuity found from cover to cover.
We will continue to debate what Shaul really meant when he appeared to be speaking against The Law and he will continue to look schizophrenic by also complimenting and living by The Law. If we keep holding on to these views he will always look like he is contradicting Himself and frankly THAT would make him a false Apostle and an agent of Hallel (Hebrew name for Lucifer).
As we continue in this series we will unpack Shaul's teachings on "salvation" and Messiah Yeshua's statement to Nicodemus "you must be born again" (other references also) and put them into cultural relevance. You will see that as you learn to see Scripture through a Hebraic Context there is literally ZERO contradiction between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Apostolic Writings.
I'll leave you with one more graphic displaying Marcion's view of the "God of the Old Testament" and "God of the New Testament". How many of these things have you heard from pulpits over the years? How much do you think even using these phrases (even if you mean something different by them) has affected your understanding of the Hebraic Culture contained within the pages of the entire Bible?
In the next segment of this series, we will take a deep look at the symbology of the Lamb of God and how the ceremonial portion of the sin sacrifice in Torah gave us the perfect prophetic picture of what salvation really is.
đđźđđźđđź Go to Part 2