The Teaching of Balaam

Excerpt from Monte Judah of The Lion and Lamb Ministries:

Jesus says:

But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit acts of immorality.

Revelation 2:14

In particular, Yeshua speaks of a teaching of Balaam that is a stumbling block before the sons of Israel. What exactly is the teaching of Balaam and how is it a stumbling block before the sons of Israel. Who exactly are the sons of Israel He is referring to?

If you recall, Balaam was a prophet hired by Balak to curse the children of Israel under the leadership of Moses. The teaching of Balaam was to get the sons of Israel to marry foreign daughters. This would cause Israel to loose their distinctive definition as being the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This would mix other customs with theirs and thus diminish the value of their heritage. This would change the teaching so that Moses was just one of their teachers and move them gradually to a different point of view. In the end, the counsel was to assimilate Israel and make them just like anyone else, by separating them from one another and removing their identity.

The teaching of Balaam is to tell the sons of Israel that they no longer have a covenant with God through Moses. The teaching of Balaam diminishes and removes the Torah (the teaching of Moses).

Today, the teaching of Balaam is rampant. It comes in the form of the following precept: Jesus Christ came with the purpose to do away with (fulfill?) the temple service, the Torah (Law), and alter the customs of Moses. The teaching of Balaam is to replace (at a minimum to diminish) Israel's identity as the chosen people, the teaching of Moses in the Torah, and to alter the customs of Sabbath and Biblical holidays. Today, a new Christian believer will run right into these stumbling blocks with churchmen disputing Sabbath, holidays, and the idea of keeping the Torah.

The spiritual reality is that holding to Moses and the Torah is in direct conflict with the teachings of Balaam. It follows that those holding to the teachers of Balaam even take issue with the Messiah when He speaks of Moses and the Torah.

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.

Matthew 5:17-18

The Messiah has said that the Torah is still with us and valid. However, this is not enough to convince the followers of Balaam. They dispute the meaning of the word "fulfill." However, it is clear from the context and any basic dictionary that the word "fulfill" is not a synonym for "abolish." The teachers of Balaam teach the opposite of Messiah Yeshua and forms new meanings for words on this point.

Yeshua emphasized that not one part, down to the letters and strokes of letters, would diminish prior to heaven and earth passing away. I would remind everyone that heaven and earth are still with us, therefore, every part of the Torah is still valid and with us. All has not been accomplished yet. That is clearly evident with the subject of the second coming. There is more Scripture about the second coming in the Old Testament than in the New Testament. All has not yet been accomplished.

Jesus Fulfilled/Abolished the Law?

Many (unconscious) modern replacement theologians misinterpret these verses because they believe the law is no longer relevant. However, (Jesus Christ) Yeshua said He came to fulfill it, which does not mean it was lacking something but that the coming of the Messiah completed the picture. The law now “existed as God originally intended” (Bivin & Blizzard 1994:113). But to know what (Jesus Christ) Yeshua really means with “fulfill” and “destroy”, we must go back to the Hebrew culture. “To destroy the law” meant misinterpreting Scripture, while “fulfilling the law” meant correct interpretation – they were technical terms of rabbinic argumentation. What we therefore see in our passage is that (Jesus Christ) Yeshua, having been accused of “destroying”, i.e. misinterpreting, the Tanakh (the Torah and Naviim), gives his counterargument that He is actually “fulfilling”, i.e. correctly interpreting it, and actually establishing the correct interpretation of the Old Testament (Tanakh). Stern goes back to our first interpretation by concluding that these verses “enunciate three ways in which the Torah and the Prophets remain necessary, applicable and in force. The remainder of Chapter 5 gives six specific cases in which Yeshua explains the fuller spiritual meaning of points in the Jewish Law. In fact, this verse states the theme and agenda of the entire Sermon on the Mount, in which (Jesus Christ) Yeshua completes, makes fuller, the understanding of his talmidim concerning the Torah and the Prophets, so that they can more fully express what being God’s people is all about.” (Stern 1999:26)

Did Jesus Christ or Apostle Paul come to abolish the law? - The heresy of ANTINOMIANISM.

DID JESUS CHRIST COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW?

Many (unconscious) modern replacement theologians misinterpret these verses because they believe the law is no longer relevant. However, (Jesus Christ) Yeshua said He came to fulfill it, which does not mean it was lacking something but that the coming of the Messiah completed the picture. The law now “existed as God originally intended” (Bivin & Blizzard 1994:113). But to know what (Jesus Christ) Yeshua really means with “fulfill” and “destroy”, we must go back to the Hebrew culture. “To destroy the law” meant misinterpreting Scripture, while “fulfilling the law” meant correct interpretation – they were technical terms of rabbinic argumentation. What we therefore see in our passage is that (Jesus Christ) Yeshua, having been accused of “destroying”, i.e. misinterpreting, the Tanakh (the Torah and Naviim), gives his counterargument that He is actually “fulfilling”, i.e. correctly interpreting it, and actually establishing the correct interpretation of the Old Testament (Tanakh). Stern goes back to our first interpretation by concluding that these verses “enunciate three ways in which the Torah and the Prophets remain necessary, applicable and in force. The remainder of Chapter 5 gives six specific cases in which Yeshua explains the fuller spiritual meaning of points in the Jewish Law. In fact, this verse states the theme and agenda of the entire Sermon on the Mount, in which (Jesus Christ) Yeshua completes, makes fuller, the understanding of his talmidim concerning the Torah and the Prophets, so that they can more fully express what being God’s people is all about.” (Stern 1999:26)

SO JESUS CHRIST DID NOT COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW!

==========================

======
DID APOSTLE PAUL COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW?

Apostle Paul's teachings has been a subject of controversy even since he began his ministry. There are those who are pro-paul and there are many bitter critics. Apostle Peter said that his gospel can easily be misunderstood. In fact I believe that Apostle Paul's gospel has been misused and misquoted.

Quoted from: A Sectarian Manifesto 4QMMT:4Q394-399.
In 1948, well-known biblical scholar W.D. Davies said, "It has long been a matter of controversy among New Testament scholars how best we should interpret the theology of Paul."

Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I (Apostle Paul) had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.


Apostle Paul and the Law
Quote: Apostle Paul argues it is not the "works of the law" (ie religious halachic observance) that makes one tsadiq (righteous). "Works of the law" has erroneously been interpreted to mean "works of the Torah", this is very misleading, one could then assume then that "works of Torah" are not required in Mashiyach. This would mean that it would be ok to steal, lie, commit adultery, and violate Torah because no one in Mashiyach is under the "works of Torah". But Paul is referring to the "Works of Tradition" and referring to those who trust in the "works of Tradition" to establish their righteousness, outside of Mashiyach.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg JR. & Edward Cook p.359, 364. "Works of the law" (Ma'aseh ha Torah) is referring to halachic observance of the Essene community.

(To the) Romans 13:9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be (in the Torah), are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Did Apostle Paul abolish the Torah? No, not at all, according to these versus...

Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the Law (Torah) are just before G-d, but the doers of the Law(Torah) shall be justified”

Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the Law (Torah) by this (new) faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law (Torah).

Romans 7:12 The Law (Torah) is Holy and the commandment is holy and just and good"

Some web sites attempt to explain the difficult teachings of Apostle Paul
http://www.mashiyach.com/scrolls.htm
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/how-to-understand-difficult-teachings-of-apostle-paul.html

WHAT APOSTLE PAUL WAS SAYING WAS THAT WE ARE STILL MEASURED AGAINST THE MORAL LAW OF THE TORAH, BUT AS GENTILES, WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THE JEWISH TRADITIONAL AND CEREMONIAL LAW OF THE TORAH (HALACHIC OBSERVANCE). ALL THAT APOSTLE PAUL WAS TEACHING WAS THAT GENTILES DO NOT HAVE TO BECOME JEWS IN THEIR TRADITIONS AND CEREMONIES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE SALVATION, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO OBSERVE THE MORAL LAW.

=============================================
DID MODERN CHRISTIANITY ABOLISH THE LAW?

THE HERESY OF ANTINOMIANISM by R D Linder

The word comes from the Greek anti (against) and nomos (law), and refers to the doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to preach and / or obey the moral law of the OT. There have been several different justifications for this view down through the centuries.

Some have taught that once persons are justified by faith in Christ, they no longer have any obligation toward the moral law because Jesus has freed them from it. A variant of this first position is that since Christ has raised believers above the positive precepts of the law, they need to be obedient only to the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, who will keep them from sin.

A second view has been that since the law came from the Demiurge (as in Gnosticism) and not from the true, loving Father, it was a Christian's duty to disobey it.

Third, others have said that since sin is inevitable anyway, there is no need to resist it. An extension of this view is the contention of some that since God, in his eternal decree, willed sin, it would be presumptuous to resist it. Finally, still others have opposed the preaching of the law on the grounds that it is unnecessary and, indeed, contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It was the first of these views that the apostle Paul had to address in various letters to Christian churches in the first century. For example, there were those in the Corinth church who taught that once people were justified by faith, they could engage in immorality since there was no longer any obligation to obey the moral law (1 Cor. 5 - 6). Paul also had to correct others who obviously had drawn wrong conclusions from his teachings on justification and grace (e.g., Rom. 3:8, 31). Paul himself agonized over his own inability to meet the law's demands, but also exalted it as holy, spiritual, and good (Rom. 7). Elsewhere he taught that the law was the schoolmaster who brings sinners to a knowledge of their sin and therefore to Christ (Gal. 3:24). He concluded that the proper relationship was that of the stipulated works of the law flowing from the experience of saving grace rather than vice versa (Rom. 6 - 8).

Perhaps the most extreme form of antinomianism in early Christianity found expression in the Adamite sect in North Africa. The Adamites flourished in the second and third centuries, called their church "Paradise," condemned marriage because Adam had not observed it, and worshiped in the nude.

Many Gnostics in the first centuries of the Christian era held the second of these variations of antinomianism, that the Demiurage, not the true God, gave the moral law; therefore it should not be kept. Some forms of antinomian Gnosticism survived well into the Middle Ages. Moreover, various medieval heretical groups preached Corinthian - style freedom from the law, some going so far as to claim that even prostitution was not sinful for the spiritual person.

The two most famous antinomian controversies in Christian history occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and involved Martin Luther and Anne Hutchinson, respectively. In fact, it was Luther who actually coined the word "antinomianism" in his theological struggle with his former student, Johann Agricola. In the early days of the Reformation, Luther had taught that, after NT times, the moral law had only the negative value of preparing sinners for grace by making them aware of their sin. Agricola denied even this function of the law, believing that repentance should be induced only through the preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

This first major theological controversy in Protestant history lasted intermittently from 1537 to 1540. During this time Luther began to stress the role of the law in Christian life and to preach that it was needed to discipline Christians. He also wrote an important theological treatise to refute antinomianism once and for all: Against the Antinomians (1539). The whole matter was finally settled for Lutheranism by the Formula of Concord in 1577, which recognized a threefold use of the law: (1) to reveal sin, (2) to establish general decency in society at large, and (3) to provide a rule of life for those who have been regenerated through faith in Christ.

There were several outbreaks of antinomianism in the Puritan movement in seventeenth century England. However, the major controversy over this teaching among Puritans came in New England in the 1630s in connection with an outspoken woman named Anne Marbury Hutchinson, who emigrated to Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1634. At the time, the New England Puritans were attempting to clarify the place of "preparation for conversion" in covenant (or federal) theology. They had come to the conclusion that salvation lay in fulfilling the conditions of God's covenant with humankind, including preparation for justification and a conscious effort toward sancitification. To some, including Hutchinson, this seemed like an overemphasis on the observance of the law, and she condemned it as a "covenant of works." Instead, she stressed the "covenant of grace," which she said was apart from the works of the law. She began to hold informal meetings in her home to expound her views and to denounce those of the preachers in Massachusetts.

In the context of the great stress of the times, it was only a few years before the civil war erupted in England and the colony lived in tense frontier circumstances, the New England clergy probably misunderstood her main concerns and overreacted to what they perceived to be a threat to the unity and internal security of the Puritan community. At a synod of Congregational churches in 1637 Hutchinson was condemned as an antinomian, enthusiast, and heretic, and banished from the colony. In 1638 she moved to Rhode Island.

In the twentieth century some have viewed existentialist ethics, situation ethics, and moral relativism as forms of antinomianism because these either reject or diminish the normative force of moral law. Certainly most orthodox Christians today agree that the law served the twin purposes of establishing the fact of human sin and of providing moral guidelines for Christian living. In general the various antinomian controversies in history have clarified the legitimate distinctions between law and gospel and between justification and sanctification.

The Christian community as a whole has rejected antinomianism over the years for several reasons. It has regarded the view as damaging to the unity of the Bible, which demands that one part of the divine revelation must not contradict another. Even more important, it has argued that antinomians misunderstood the nature of justification by faith, which, though granted apart from the works of the law, is not sanctification. In general, orthodoxy teaches that the moral principles of the law are still valid, not as objective strivings but as fruits of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer. This disposes of the objection that since the law is too demanding to be kept, it can be completely thrust aside as irrelevant to the individual living under grace.

by R D Linder

SO WE SEE THESE TEACHINGS THAT THE LAW IS DONE AWAY WITH IS NOTHING BUT AN OLD DEMONIC LIE AND A HERESY RE-APPEARING IN 21st century FALSE TEACHINGS OF CHRISTIANITY, MANY TIMES DISCARDED BY PREVIOUS GENERATIONS OF CHRISTIAN TEACHINGS.