The Prodigal Son Detail You've Never Heard (Beautiful Meaning)

The story of the prodigal son may be some of the most well-known words of the Messiah. It tells the story of a young son who asks for his inheritance, leaves home, squanders the money, finds poverty and despair, before returning home to a father who, after all that, welcomes him back. That's lovely right? We can see how the father in the story represents God and the amazing, freeing, healing forgiveness he offers us...no matter what our choices have been before this.

You can read the full parable in Luke 15:11-32.

The basic understanding of the prodigal son is rich and meaningful, and so often the salve our hearts need. But if we stop here we will miss more of what Jesus intended to show us through this story.

There are many interesting extra details in this passage that you may have heard from Bible commentaries or sermons. The younger son demanding his share of the estate while his father was still alive wasn't just rude, it was akin to telling him that he wished he were dead. And the two sons symbolize the two houses of Israel. The job of feeding the pigs being an extremely low point since the word of God does not consider pigs to be food. There's a lot going on here! And yet, still, there is more.

I used to read this story and when I would get to the part of the father running to his son, I assumed it to be an emotional response. After all he had done...the demand, the abandoning, the squandering of the money...the father still was so happy to see him that he couldn't wait for him to make his own way to the house. I thought it was about an overwhelming feeling of love, that the father couldn't stay still. And that's not necessarily wrong. Heaven does rejoice when we repent. And no one has more joy than YHWH!

But if we knew the culture of the time and place when Jesus told this story, we would recognize something else. I had always assumed this to be a family matter, with what transpired between the younger son and his dad to be of no concern to anyone outside the family...like something similar would be if it happened today in our culture. But at the time, these actions were seen as a community issue.

The Talmud records that there was a customary response to the younger son's actions. The extended family, or sometimes larger community, would perform a 'cutting off' ceremony against someone who had violated community standards in some way. This was called kezazah in Hebrew, and it was a formal way of severing connections with someone who married unconventionally or who sold off part of their family estate, according to the Talmud. Relatives or members of the community would bring some sort of pot or container to break at the feet of whoever they wanted to cut off. So when the father took off running when he saw his returning son, it wasn't just because he was happy to see him. He ran to get to him before anyone tried to cut him off. He ran to save him!

Please note that the cutting off custom was a cultural tradition at the time, and not something the Bible ever calls for or suggests! But it was prevalent enough that both the community members and the Messiah's audience expected the father to cut off the son who had been disloyal to him. The elder brother in the story certainly seemed to expect that, and stated that he begrudged this welcoming back and receiving of his brother. 

But the father did the unexpected and not only accepted the son again, but ran (at the cost of his own personal comfort and perhaps his own dignity) to him to stop anyone who would try and keep his son away from his presence. When the father ran, he was running to the rescue of his beloved son.

I love how this insight into the culture of the time paints a richer picture of the unfathomable depths of God's love for each of us. He doesn't let our own traditions or expectations stand between us and him. When we turn ourselves around from our poor decisions, and walk back to YHWH (the picture of repentance, by the way), he runs to us. He runs because joy fills his heart, and he runs to rescue us. Praise God for the beautiful details inside Biblical truth.

Related posts:

The Parable of the House Upon the Rock (Understanding Matthew 7:24-27)
Biblical Law and the Woman Caught in Adultery
The Two Houses: Israel and Judah in Scripture

The Real Meaning of the Story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42)

I think the story of Mary and Martha, where Jesus is at their house and Martha is upset that Mary is not being more helpful, has probably caused more frustration than maybe any of the Messiah's words. His statement in Luke 10:41-42 "Martha, Martha, you are upset and worried about many things - but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her," has been misunderstood as a criticism of Martha worrying about a meal. We've misunderstood some things in this story, and this post will shed light onto what was actually happening and what was meant in this part of Scripture.

Who were Mary and Martha? 

They were sisters who were both devoted followers of the Messiah during his ministry. The Bible speaks highly of the faith of each of them, and says that Jesus loved them both (John 11:5). They were from Bethany, and they hosted Jesus in their home. Their brother was Lazarus - who was raised from the dead by the Messiah. We see Mary and Martha in the Bible in Luke 10, John 11, and John 12.

The story of the confrontation between Martha and the Savior about Mary's lack of help is found in Luke 10:38-42.

We are told the story goes like this...

Mary and Martha were followers of the Messiah, and they were hosting him and many of his Disciples in their home. While Jesus was waiting on lunch to be served, he began teaching those who were there. Martha was hard at work in the kitchen, preparing an elaborate meal. But her sister Mary sat down to listen to the words the Messiah spoke instead of helping with the food or setting the table. Martha felt annoyed that she was stuck doing all the hospitality work for this large group of people and became upset...and then Jesus reprimands her. He tells her she's making too much food and losing sight of what's most important. He says that Mary made the wiser choice by not helping in the kitchen.

Over and over I have heard that story used to reprimand women for the work they do in providing nourishment to others. It's also used to shush women if they raise any qualms about needing help with making dinner or church kitchen responsibilities. Don't complain, you're the one choosing the less important thing.

Jesus told Martha that "only one thing is required." I've heard many times from the pulpit and Bible studies that this reprimand was because Martha was making too many separate dishes, when she should have just made one simple thing so that she would have had time to come listen herself while the soup simmered or whatever.

I actually remember being in the Christ for the Nations bookstore and seeing a cookbook called something like, "Only One Thing is Needed." It was inspired by the words of the Messiah and filled with recipes for casseroles, stews, and other one-dish meals.

I probably don't have to tell you how much frustration, shame, guilt, and annoyance this interpretation of the notorious Mary/Martha story has caused millions of women. Throughout history women have been given the workload of feeding, not just their families, but relatives, neighbors, coworkers, and church members. They are tasked with figuring out what picky eaters will eat and feeding them multiple times a day. They are called on to feed hundreds of people at funerals and other church functions. They are expected to take meals to new mothers, the elderly, the sick, and the bereaved. If there's an office party that food needs made for, who prepares it is mostly decided not by their position in the company, but by gender. Moms step up to feed the basketball team after games. Women around the world cook for dozens of people to make family reunions possible and make meals to celebrate birthdays and countless occasions. They do this work heroically, with limited budgets, accounting for dietary restrictions and preferences, limited ingredient availability, and often on short notice. This work typically goes unappreciated, their work not valued or noticed, and is almost always done without pay. It's rare for men to pitch in their share of cooking and clean up at events like this. While many women do this work joyfully, it is still work, and I don't know anyone who would prefer kitchen duty to listening to the Messiah speak.

No one wants to be Martha in this story, doing the work while missing out on what's better. Plenty of women wish they had more time for Bible study or hearing the words of Jesus...but who is going to feed everyone? The simple reality is that most people cannot afford take-out or convenience foods every night...to say nothing of the significant cost of professional catering for large events. Even if you are able to outsource this kind of work, it just puts someone else in the position of having to do the cooking when they could be doing something else. And now Martha is getting in trouble (from Jesus himself, no less) because she was taking too much time to cook for everyone?! How fair is that?

I've struggled for years to understand this story. Surely the point of this story is not to manage your time better or you'll get into trouble? The point can't be that making meals is a bad thing. The point can't be that if you say that you want help then you're doing something wrong. Surely Jesus, who so often saw and recognized the needs of women and always treated them with kindness, wasn't mad at a woman working hard to provide a meal for him and his followers?

In fact, this whole incident is quite brief and much of what we've talked about has been assumed, not actually taken from the word of God. Luke 10:38-42 is limited to these words:

Now it happened as they went that he entered a certain village; and a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at Jesus' feet and heard his word. But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached him and said, "Don't you care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her to help me." And Jesus answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, Mary has chosen the good part, which will not be taken away from her."

Did you catch that there's no mention of cooking a meal here? Martha was busy serving. The Bible does not say that she was busy with serving food to the Messiah. It says she was busy serving. Big difference.

The word used for serving in Luke 10:40 when it says that Martha was busy serving is diakonia. This is usually translated to mean:

1. service, ministering, especially of those who execute the commands of others

2. of those who by the command of God proclaim and promote religion among men

3. the ministration of those who render to others the offices of Christian affection, especially those who help meet need by either collecting or distributing of charities

4. the office of deacon in the church

5. the service of those who prepare and present food

We can see from this definition, this word is rarely used to mean preparing food. Given the context of the definition, even if food is being talked about it's more likely to mean cooking for a huge crowd for charity reasons, and not so much for a dinner party in a home setting.

Just to demonstrate that diakonia is rarely used in the context of cooking and serving a meal at home, we see it translated otherwise in these places:

But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. -Acts 6:4

His purpose was to equip God's people for the work of serving and building up the body of Messiah. -Ephesians 4:12

Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their ministry. -Acts 12:25

God gave us the ministry of reconciliation. -2 Corinthians 5:18

I know your works, your charity, and service, and faith. -Revelation 2:19

Given verses like these, and that Paul frequently used this word to describe his ministry, it seems unreasonable to assume that the service Martha was doing was serving one meal at home. The way Martha describes Mary's actions further supports this understanding of the verse. When Martha says that Mary has left her she uses the word kataleipo, which means forsaken. If this passage was truly about Martha wanting help with dinner, I doubt she would have chosen such a strong term to describe Mary's slipping away for a few minutes to hear the Messiah speak.

It's most likely that what Martha was doing was running some sort of ministry. Maybe she was caring for orphaned children or lepers. Perhaps she had been assigned charity tasks by a religious leader in her community. She may have been doing deacon work (yes, the New Testament mentions several women as deacons). She could have been working on an outreach project to share good news within or outside of her community. Or she could have been working on collecting and distributing charity to the poor or unwell.

Many scholars believe that Mary and Martha (as well as their brother Lazarus) were part of the Essenes - a religious sect of their day. The Essenes were known for charity work and did much caring for the sick and providing for the poor. So that would certainly fit with the idea that Martha was doing ministry work instead of sitting at the Messiah's feet.

This is why Martha takes her complaint up with the Messiah, and not her sister. If this was about putting a meal on the table, she likely would have told Mary that she needed help. But instead Martha went to Jesus and asked, "Don't you care that my sister has forsaken me to do this work by myself?" I think that was her way of saying, "I am doing all this work for you, and if you cared then you would send someone to help me." She's not talking about setting the table or dishing up the food. She's not talking about needing a hand for a few minutes with clean up. She's talking about significant ministry projects.

And we should note that the Messiah is not upset with Martha! Most of grew up believing that his "Martha, Martha" statement was paired with an eyeroll or came out of frustration. We think of the famous, "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia," line from The Brady Bunch and think of someone who has lost their patience with this person. But that's not the case here. Instead of belittling Martha for her choices (no matter if that's making a meal or running a ministry), Jesus speaks tenderly to her. His repetition of her name was said out of concern or empathy, which fits with what he says next, "You are anxious and worried." He's not making fun of her. He's not criticizing her. He's empathizing with how she feels. He's showing her that he does care.

And what Mary was doing was not shirking practical work so that she could do what she wanted - however spiritual that was. I used to picture Mary's actions as selfish. I would picture the busyness of my grandma's kitchen when she was making a meal for her large family - meat need to be sliced, gravy made, the potatoes mashed, vegetables chopped, water poured, the table set - and it would seem like rather than helping her God wanted me to go sit down and read my Bible? Wouldn't that be unkind of me to leave my grandma with all that work? Wasn't it unkind of Mary to expect Martha to serve her along with everyone else they had in their home?

But that is entirely the wrong picture to have about Mary and Martha!

We should also note the wording in Luke 10:39, that says Mary was sitting at the feet of the Messiah. This is not necessarily a reflection of her physical posture (though it could have been). Sitting at the feet was a phrase that was used to describe someone learning from a teacher and being their disciple. That's significant because many have taught and believed that women can't be disciples, in direct contrast to what Scripture teaches and demonstrates. This information also changes the narrative from a picture of Mary sitting and listening to Jesus for an hour or so while Martha cooked, to an ongoing habit in their lives. 

Luke 10:38 says that the sisters "opened their home" to the Messiah. It does not tell us if that was for one day or many. In the traditional rendering of the story, it's easy to assume that it was for one meal or one evening. But there's no reason to think it couldn't have been for a longer period of time. That would mean this wasn't about the logistics of one meal. Days or weeks could have passed where Mary was being discipled by Yahusha, while Martha was continuing on with the ministry by herself.

This gives us perspective on where Martha was coming from when she went to the Messiah. Don't you care that I'm stuck doing all this work for you by myself? This was not about the practical logistics of one meal, but likely an ongoing situation where Martha saw the needs in her community, and wasn't sure how they could be met without her. She was working to help people, and she wrongly believed that she couldn't stop to listen to the words of the Messiah or to grow in relationship with him. Like Peter when he walked on water, she wound up focusing on the storm around her and not listening to the Messiah's words. We see similar mindsets today when people believe that there is too much work to be done to pause and worship on the Sabbath day, or when our focus is on doing good deeds ahead of spending time with YHWH. 

Yes, good works are an important part of our faith. As James says, "Faith without works is dead." What we do is important. But the Bible also teaches that hearing Scripture is what equips us to do those good deeds. If we do not spend time on our relationship with the Messiah, we will not be equipped and our works will not have the same impact. And, like Martha, it will often leave us feeling anxious and perhaps not cared about by God.

The story of Mary and Martha is in no way a reprimand to the millions of women who spend more time in the kitchen than they would prefer. And it's certainly not a prohibition against serving side dishes. Jesus was not mad at Martha, but had compassion for the worry that she dealt with from not pausing to be with him. This story is a reminder that the weight of the world does not fall on our shoulders. It's a reminder that a lifestyle of time spent in Scripture, prayer, and worship is foundational to good works. It's a permission slip to prioritize your relationship with the Messiah above getting things done in his name.

Related posts on women in the Bible:
Overlooked Truths in Proverbs 31
The Significance of Sarah in Scripture
A Woman of Valor

The Parable of the House Upon the Rock (Understanding Matthew 7:24-27)

"The wise man built his house upon the rock...the rains came down and the floods came up..."

I still know the motions to this Sunday school song I learned as a child. It is inspired by the words of the Messiah found in Matthew 7:24-27. Jesus is giving an analogy about the wise man who builds his house on a firm foundation versus the foolish man who builds it on sand. When the rains and the floods happen the foolish man's house was destroyed, while the wise man's still stood.

This is practical, of course. Any home that is going to last needs a sturdy foundation. But this is also a parable. The house, the foundation, and the storm all stand in for other things. And the Messiah explains the meaning to us. The point he is really making is about following the word of YHWH.

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be like a wise man who built his house on the rock."  -Matthew 7:24

"Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them shall be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand." -Matthew 7:26

This is not a vague spiritual principle. This is not generic advice. 

This is also not just about what the Bible says in the New Testament or limited to the words of the Messiah himself. Scripture identifies Jesus as "the Living Word" (John 1:1), and the Savior said that he only did what his father did, and that he and his father are one. Not to mention at the time he said this there was no 'New Testament.' With this in mind, we can see that the firm foundation he is talking about is all of Scripture.

For extra confirmation of this we can back up and look at the context of what was said leading up to the house upon the rock analogy. Not only is he talking about the whole of the Bible, but he specifically includes Biblical law and the commandments. 

"Many shall say to me in that day, 'Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and done many mighty works in your name?' And then I shall declare to them, 'I never knew you, depart from me, you without the law.'" -Matthew 7:23

Immediately after that he makes the statement, "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be like a wise man who built his house on the rock."

You can choose to build your life on whatever you like, but only a strong foundation will get you through the storms we all face. The Messiah said that that foundation is the word of God, and he expressly included the commandments and Biblical law in that statement.

Here is the Messiah telling us exactly how to build our lives. Upon the rock of what the Bible says and its commandments! You can choose to ignore Scripture's commandments...or you can choose to be like the wise man and have them be your foundation.

Now, it is important to correctly understand what Scripture's laws are. We need to make a distinction between the laws for how we live and the laws about animal sacrifice which are no longer in effect since the priesthood is now under Yahusha's Melchizedek order. We need to know that the law he is talking about is not manmade Jewish law, and it's also not just meant in a vague euphemistic sense or just Christian mantras or doctrines.

It's the Bible's instructions. That's what the Messiah said to build your life on.

These are the commandments that Scripture gives us for how we are to live. They consist of practical things like serving YHWH and not practicing idolatry. How to conduct your business and how to treat your neighbors and parents. What day is considered holy and what we should and shouldn't consume. Biblical law is not too hard for you to keep, according to the Bible. Jesus said that should be our foundation!

The rock that we should build our lives upon is Scripture's commandments.

Related posts:
The Three Types of Laws in Scripture
What the Messiah Said About Biblical Law
Basics of Biblical Law

Did the Messiah Fulfill the Law? Understanding Matthew 5:17

Did the Messiah fulfill the law? That's a phrase most of us have heard dozens of times...and with good reason. The Bible says the Messiah came to fulfill the law; this was said by Jesus himself in Matthew 5:17. But it's important to get the implications of that statement correct.

What does the Messiah fulfilled the law mean?

Contrary to popular belief, fulfilling the law doesn't mean getting rid of the law or "doing away with" Biblical law. Many Christians throw the statement, "The Messiah fulfilled the law," at nearly any suggestion of keeping Biblical commandments to mean that since the Messiah did this, we don't need to worry about it anymore. This is usually said to explain why many believers choose to disregard or not honor certain instructions from Scripture. Christianity teaches that the Messiah 'fulfilled' the law by keeping it perfectly, thereby setting us 'free' from some (albeit not all, in Christian thinking) of the commandments. The foundation for this argument is flawed, as much Christian doctrine teaches that the Messiah actually violated the law. This is, of course, not true! You can see posts like this one for more information on that but the takeaway is that Yahusha never broke any of the commandments. If he had, he would have been a sinner (Scripture defines sinning as breaking Biblical commandments), and he would have been disqualified from being our Savior.

But if you look up the word fulfill in any dictionary you will find a different definition than getting rid of something. The first definition is usually given as something like, "to bring into actuality," or "to bring into effect," or "to do something." To me that sounds like the opposite of doing away with something! 

Look at the Messiah's words when we understand this word properly:

"Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to bring them into effect." -Matthew 5:17

or

"I did not come to abolish the law but to do it."

What law did the Messiah fulfill?

It's important to know exactly which law the Messiah was bringing into effect. A lot of people will tell you the Messiah actually taught some sort of New Testament law or His own version of Biblical law, but the context of the law and the Prophets doesn't support this idea. Plus at the time of this statement there was no New Testament. Since He only did what He saw His Father doing, and given the context of the law and the Prophets, the Messiah was referencing the commandments given in the Old Testament.

There are three types of laws in the Bible. Biblical, Levitical, and Jewish.

He's not bringing into effect Jewish laws that are manmade. He spent much of His ministry confronting religious leaders about upholding their own traditions and teachings in place of what Scripture says, so it would make no sense that He would be bringing those into effect.

That leaves us with Biblical law and Levitical law. Since Psalm 110 tells us the Messiah's priesthood is of Melchizedek, and we know that He cannot function as a Levitical priest since He is of the tribe of Judah, it wouldn't make any sense to say that His focus was on Levitical law and cracking down on the standards for animal sacrifice, etc.

That leaves us with Biblical law. These are the laws found in the Old Testament (mostly in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy - also known as the Torah), that give us clear instructions for our behavior. Most of Biblical law relates to how we worship YHWH, how we treat others, regulations for loans and business conduct, instructions for sexual conduct, animals we are not to eat, and instructions for Biblical holidays, including the Sabbath.

Learn more about Biblical law here.

But didn't the Messiah keep the law perfectly so we don't have to anymore?

The Messiah did keep the law perfectly. But the Bible never says that because He did, we don't have to.

Depending on where you live in the world you are subject to specific laws. These encompass everything from driving rules to tax law to workplace regulations to laws against theft. As a citizen, or even a passing visitor, you are expected to keep all of them. Let's say that my dad has flawlessly kept the laws of our state and country for his entire life...having never evaded his taxes, committed a crime, ran a stop sign, etc. Does that mean that because he has perfectly kept these laws, then I don't have to? Of course not! It would be completely absurd for me to commit a crime and tell the police officer, "It's okay for me to do this because my dad has never broken the law."

And what would the police officer think if I used that as an argument? Something like, "If your dad set such a great example, why aren't you more like him? Why aren't you following the same rules?"

Now if I were to get in legal trouble, my dad would be gracious enough to help. If I was given a speeding ticket, he would pay it for me if I couldn't. But just because someone has taken care of my debt doesn't mean it would be wise for me to go out and break traffic laws - why put myself and others at risk from reckless choices? But his actions don't mean the law does not apply to me. Since we all have a spiritual debt we cannot pay, the Messiah lovingly and graciously covered that debt for us with his own life. 

Yes, the Messiah kept the law perfectly. He didn't break even the least significant instruction of Scripture. But that doesn't make it okay for us to disregard how He lived. And 1 John 2:6 tells us that if we claim to know Him, we need to walk as He did.

What does Matthew 5:17 mean then?

This passage of Scripture does say that the Messiah came to fulfill the law, but we can see that fulfill doesn't mean "do away with," but rather "to do" or to "bring into effect"! If the meaning of the word fulfill isn't convincing enough, we should also note in this same verse Yahusha says without ambiguity, "Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them." The Messiah literally said that He did not come to do away with the the commandments! 

This understanding of Matthew 5 fits with the rest of the Messiah's life and the Gospels. We consistently see Him keeping the commandments and defending Biblical law to the religious leaders who were more concerned with their own traditions. He came to show us the way to live, and said He wasn't abolishing Biblical law.

The Messiah fulfilled the law by keeping it, and by keeping it He set the example for how we are to live.

Related posts:
Did the Messiah Break the Law?
Basics of Biblical Law
Commandments or Traditions - Understanding the New Testament

Did the Messiah Break the Law?

To cut to the chase: no. The Messiah never once broke Biblical law. But he was often accused of breaking the law.

I used to read my Bible and think that when the Pharisees accused the Messiah of breaking Biblical law, they were correct. I figured that as the son of God, the Messiah had license to take some liberties. Just like the son or daughter of a business owner can, typically, get away with more slacking off than the average employee. And if keeping the law wasn't important to the Messiah, why on earth should it be to me?

One of the major themes of the New Testament that gets overlooked is the Messiah's harsh rebukes for manmade traditions. Many of us have made the assumption that the laws Yahusha stands against are from the Bible, buried deep somewhere in the Old Testament. But this is not the case. The laws he stood against were manmade, Jewish laws. It's important to know that Judaism has literally added thousands upon thousands of rules to their religious system that aren't found in Scripture. We see the Messiah's contempt for this in Mark 7:8, "You lay aside the commandments of YHWH, and instead hold to the traditions of men."

The Messiah frequently upset religious leaders. As did his followers. They frequently set aside manmade tradition or Jewish laws that weren't found in the Bible. But they didn't break the commandments of Scripture!

Some examples...

-Messiah accused of breaking the Sabbath day by healing someone. -Matthew 12:10
In Matthew 12:12 Yahusha responds to his accusers. He says, "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." That was not a new idea. He's not bending the rules or saying that it is lawful just because he says so. He is correcting his accusers. He's saying the Bible teaches this is lawful. He was not re-writing the Torah or making an "anything goes" loophole policy. He is explaining to them what the Bible says. While the Pharisees might say it is against their own laws to heal on the Sabbath, the Bible does not say this. Of course this means the Messiah did not break the law with his Sabbath healings.

-Followers eating grain on the Sabbath. -Luke 6:1-5
I think the Messiah almost brags a little here.... It's the Sabbath and some of his disciples are hungry, so they picked some kernels of wheat in a nearby field and threshed them in their hands to take off the hard chaff. While the Bible says we aren't to work on the Sabbath it does not say that you can't peel an orange to eat (which would be somewhat similar to what the disciples were doing). Yahusha told the accusers he was the Master of the Sabbath, as in I'm the best at this and I know what's permissible or not. No one knows more about what's lawful on the Sabbath than I do.

-Accusation of eating with unwashed hands. -Mark 7
Scripture tells us that there are certain animals we are not to eat, and that we are not to eat blood, and that's about it. So, yes, there are dietary laws but the Bible doesn't say that we need to do a ritual hand washing before we eat, otherwise that food magically becomes unclean or defiling. The "tradition of the elders of ritual hand washing" is not a commandment of YHWH, it's a tradition of men, and the Messiah did not stand for it. See more about that in this post.

-Peter's vision of going to the Gentiles. -Acts 10
Throughout Scripture non native born Israelites have been welcomed into the family of YHWH...the Israelites left Egypt with a "mixed multitude" of Egyptians who wanted to serve YHWH after seeing his mighty acts. Women like Rahab and Ruth were not born Israelites but are celebrated in the Messiah's lineage. Caleb was not a native born, and the prophet Obadiah is believed to be from Edom. Not allowing people like this into the faith is unbiblical. This practice was prevalent in the early church, which is why YHWH gave Peter a vision and said, "What I call clean, you do not call unclean." After this the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles.

-Paul confronting Peter about not eating with Gentiles when Jews were present. -Galatians 2:11-15
Paul tells Peter here that he shouldn't be following rules that aren't from the Bible. When he says, "You have discarded the Jewish laws, why are you trying to make these Gentiles follow Jewish tradition?" he means exactly that...Jewish tradition, not Scriptural commandments. He is in no way permitting or encouraging new believers to not follow the Biblical commandments.

"They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." -Matthew 15:9
The Messiah's statement here should be a stern warning to us not to place any human ideas or manmade traditions higher than what Scripture actually says! This goes for family traditions, Jewish law, and common Christian beliefs. None of these things should be treated as doctrines and they should never be deferred to over the commandments of the Bible.

Throughout the New Testament we see the Messiah and the apostles correcting these manmade laws. If we are going to correctly understand Scripture it is absolutely essential to realize the differences between the manmade traditions of Jewish law, and the commandments of YHWH. When the Messiah and his followers clashed with leaders of the Jewish faith, it was never because they weren't keeping a Biblical commandment. Religious leaders were upset because the Messiah was against their laws.

The Messiah always upheld and kept YHWH's instructions in the Torah. When he was accused of violating Biblical commandments, his accusers were in the wrong having applied their own traditions and customs to how the Bible is understood. Let us be careful today to not do the same thing!

More on the law:
Traditions or Commandments - Understanding the New Testament
The Faith of the Bible
The Three Types of Law in Scripture

Biblical Law and the Woman Caught in Adultery

Many of us have been told that when the Messiah let the woman who was caught in adultery go free, instead of being stoned to death, he changed Biblical law. Is that what happened?

This story comes to us from John 8. You're probably familiar with it. Jewish leaders brought a woman who had been caught in adultery before the Messiah. They said that in the Torah, Moses commanded that adulterers be stoned. What did Yahusha say about this?

They were looking for a way to trap him theologically. They wanted him to disagree with Moses. Keep in mind that they were not coming to him for advice or because it was required of them. They were experts in Biblical law and they had the authority to carry it out. This was either a trap or a test. He could have dazzled them with his wisdom, as he had before. But what did he do? He stooped down, and used his finger to write in the dirt like he didn't hear them. (John 8:6)

The Bible doesn't say exactly how long the Messiah wrote in the dirt, or what words he put down. Did he write out the passage they were referring to? Did he reference another part of Scripture? Did he write their names or sins? Did he write Psalms of repentance or about the hope of forgiveness through him? Did he write the truth about this situation?

They kept questioning him, and eventually he stood up and said one of his more famous phrases. "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7)

He stooped back down and went back to his writing. One by one the accusers and crowd went away, from oldest to youngest. After that he spoke to the accused woman. She told him that no one had condemned her. "Neither do I," he said to her. "Go and sin no more." (John 8:11)

Does this prove that the Messiah is altering Biblical law?

Deuteronomy 22:22 does say that adultery is a sin punishable by death:

"When a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. Thus you shall purge the evil from Israel."

Biblical law says she deserves death. But not so fast. It also says here that both the man and the woman involved are to be put to death. Where is the man? If the religious leaders were so concerned with rightly dealing with sin, why didn't they bring him to the Messiah? There is no way for the woman to be "caught in" adultery, but not the man. It's not like they didn't know who he was. This seems to imply that something fishy is going on...did they lure her into a trap? Did someone come to them and accuse her falsely? Had she committed adultery with one of the accusing religious leaders and now they were hoping to do away with her while avoiding their own punishment?

Biblical law also says that someone can't be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. It would require two or three. While this passage of Scripture makes it sound like a fairly sizable group was present (she was brought by both scribes and Pharisees, both plural), it would seem extremely suspicious if everyone in this group was a firsthand witness to this sin. This indicates that many people present were accusing her on hearsay alone, which would be wrong and unfair. Since Scripture doesn't tell us that she was caught by at least two or three witnesses, we can't be 100% sure that there were enough witnesses to justify stoning. That means we can't be certain that the Bible truly calls for her to be stoned here.

Deuteronomy 17:7 says that the witnesses who caught her would be required to throw the first stones at her. I believe this was intentional by YHWH to prevent deaths unfairly...if you were going to accuse someone of a weighty sin, then you had to be ready to have their blood on your hands. This means it would be a sin to throw the first stones at someone caught in adultery, if you were not one of at least two witnesses to this sin. Scripture does not definitively say that the witnesses were present in John 8. If they weren't, it would have been wrong to stone her.

The man was not present, and it's not clear if there were first-hand witnesses present. This would make it against Biblical law to stone her, even if she truly had been caught in adultery. Would it be just to put someone to death on hearsay when the other alleged perpetrator of the crime is not even charged? It would not be, according to the laws given in the Torah.

Yahusha followed Biblical law by not stoning her. As a result it was a beautiful foreshadow of his taking the punishment that we all deserve for our sins. His death doesn't mean that adultery or breaking other Biblical commandments is now okay, but it means that forgiveness and redemption are possible when we repent of our mistakes.

"Go and sin no more," doesn't mean what she did was permissible. The Messiah calling it sin tells us it was definitely sin. By telling her not to sin, he was telling her not to break Biblical law. Even as this woman receives mercy and redemption, the Savior calls her to uphold the commandments of Scripture.

Related posts:
Commandments or Traditions - Understanding the New Testament
Stoning in the Bible
How the Bible Defines Sin

Commandments or Traditions - Understanding the New Testament

What does the Messiah speak against throughout the Gospels? I used to think he often went against instructions from the Old Testament. This is one of the core causes of the widespread disregard for the Biblical laws. This comes from not making a clear distinction between the commandments of the Bible and manmade Jewish laws.

By the time the Savior arrived on the scene much of the Biblical faith had evolved into what is known as Judaism. Many of us today have believed that Judaism is simply the faith that you get from observing the Old Testament, but that is not so.

The Torah/commandments/instructions of Scripture are not the same as the laws of Judaism (or any other manmade religious laws for that matter). Yes, the majority of Jewish laws are based on the Old Testament laws, but Judaism also invented thousands of laws that its followers keep. While it's not necessarily wrong to do many of the things it recommends, it is certainly wrong to teach that these things are commandments of YHWH or on par with what the Bible says. The Messiah addressed this very issue in Matthew 15:9 saying, "They worship me in vain, teaching traditions of men as if they were commandments."

Later in Matthew 22:29, the Messiah said that these religious leaders, "go astray, not knowing the Scripture, nor the power of YHWH." This was not a group of people who were unfamiliar with the Bible, mind you. They could have quoted it with the best of them. When he said they didn't know the Scriptures, he meant that they didn't correctly understand or apply them! Not understanding Scripture naturally leads to incorrect ideas. We see the Messiah address one of these wrong beliefs in Mark 7, when the issue of eating with unwashed hands comes up. The Bible never says you have to first wash your hands in order for your food to be clean, but that was being wrongly taught by religious leaders in his day.

We should also note that the words Jew and Jewish don't really make an appearance in Scripture until the New Testament. I remember being surprised while looking through a Jewish children's book. I was taken aback to see Abraham called Jewish and statements like, "Moses lead the Jews out of slavery," because Scripture does not say those things. Abraham was called a Hebrew, and the Israelites were the people enslaved in Egypt...to say that the Bible calls either of these Jews would be inaccurate. That there was a group calling themselves by a name Scripture does not give should tip us off that there is some departure there from the Bible. By the way, the term 'Jew' wasn't just slang for those from the tribe of Judah...Paul tells us that he was a Jew even though he was from the tribe of Benjamin.

Consistently throughout the Gospels we see the Messiah clashed with Jewish religious leaders. The conflict was caused by Yahusha's absolute refusal to honor the laws of Judaism the way he kept and honored the Torah. We see this when he drives the moneychangers from the Temple, when the Sadducees try to entrap him in the discussion on marriage in Heaven, when he is accused of violating the Sabbath, and in the discussion of eating with unwashed hands. In Matthew 15 he pointedly asked Jewish leaders, "Why do you transgress the commandments of YHWH by your tradition?"

I point this out so that we can realize the Messiah is not arguing against the validity of the Old Testament or the commandments of the Torah in these clashes with Jewish leaders. He is rather standing up for those things! Yahusha told his disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." He wanted them to be leery of the things Judaism was teaching because they often went against Scripture. When the Messiah was clashing with religious leaders, it was always because he was honoring Scripture above manmade commandments. Seeing this is vital to accurately understanding the Bible.

This theme continued after the Messiah's ascension into heaven:

-Stephen was stoned by Jewish leaders for using YHWH's name...even though Scripture says to not bring it to nothing by not using it.

-Paul described Judaism as his former way of life. Former, meaning that now that he served Yahusha he was no longer participating in that religious system.

-Peter is given a vision about not upholding a Jewish law when YHWH has said the opposite of it. This is his Acts 10 vision where he saw the unclean animals and heard a voice say, "What YHWH calls clean, you do not call unclean." Peter explains this to mean that he shouldn't uphold Jewish law of not eating with Gentiles, when God has called those people clean and invited them into his family.

-Paul later confronts Peter when he reverts back to Jewish tradition in place of YHWH's instruction. He tells him, "You have discarded the Jewish laws, why are you trying to make these Gentiles follow Jewish tradition?" He was saying that believers in Messiah had no need for Jewish traditions, but he was not speaking against the Bible's commandments for us.

Seeing that the Messiah and all the New Testament writers placed a difference between the instructions of the Bible and the religious system of Judaism will help us to better understand the word! For a long time I thought the debates and confrontations in the New Testament were the Messiah and the disciples disregarding Scripture, but this is not so. The Messiah always supported and honored the Torah and commandments from the Old Testament! By making the distinction between Biblical instructions and manmade traditions of Jewish law we can correctly understand the words of the Messiah and the authors of the New Testament.

Related posts:
The Three Types of Laws in Scripture
Understanding Mark 7 and The Messiah Declaring All Foods Clean
Four Distinctions We Need to Make to Understand Scripture

(I want to clarify that I do not want to be disrespectful to Jewish people or stir up hate. I am not judging the sincerity of anyone's faith. Your salvation is between you and the Creator. I know Jews who are wonderful people, and my goal is not to pick on anyone here. I simply want to examine a significant theme of Scripture.)