Antinomianism

By Network Minister
M. Tichi

Written: 3-12-2008
Excerpts from Wikipedia

Close this page to return

(Links in green)

Antinomianism (Wikipedia) is defined as a departing of "The Law",

whether it be the inaccurately* termed "Mosaic" law (that being "The Law" of
YHVH) or "The Law" of man.

What is "The Law" of YHVH?

"The Law(s)" of YHVH is (are) those commandments and statutes that

YHVH outlined in the Old Testament of the Bible, otherwise referred to as
Torah or "The 5 Books of Moses". Jewish law restricts them to 613 Mitzvot
(precepts or commandments), and lists them, and oftentimes misinterprets
them. The 613 are divided into either a “positive mitzvoth” or a “negative
mitzvoth”, along with an extra three that include murder, idolatry, and
forbidden sexual relations. This list has its beginnings in the Jewish
Babylonian Talmud.

“Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated

"The Law" (that is, the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the
benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some
may have made private notes (megillot setarim), for example of court
decisions. This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result
of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in the year 70 C.E. and the
consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms. As the Rabbis were
required to face a new reality - mainly Judaism without a Temple (to serve as
the center of teaching and study) and Judea without autonomy - there was a
flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be
maintained. It is during this period that Rabbinic discourse began to be
recorded in writing. The earliest recorded oral law may have been of the
midrashic form, in which halakhic discussion is structured as exegetical
commentary on the Pentateuch. But an alternative form, organized by
subject matter instead of by biblical verse, became dominant about the year
200 C.E., when Rabbi Judah haNasi redacted the Mishnah (????).”
(Wikipedia: Talmud)
The list was later defined by Maimonides.

Maimonides
(1135–1204), Jewish philosopher and rabbinic scholar, born in
Spain; born Moses ben Maimon. His Guide for the Perplexed
(1190) attempts to reconcile Talmudic scripture with the
philosophy of Aristotle.

Note: "The Law(s)" written by YHVH through Moses are far more
than the 613 Mitzvot, or the "Ten Commandments." To follow them
by "The Letter" of "The Law" rather than "The Intent" is called
legalism. Legalism is something YHVH never intended for HIS laws.

The History of Judaism: The apostasy of the Rabbinical Writings

Judaism isn't a religion that began with the Exodus, as some believe, it is
much newer than that, even as recent as about 2,000 years old, having its
beginnings shortly before the time of Messiah Y'Shua. Of course, at that
time, it wasn't called Orthodox Judaism. It was called Phariseeism and
Saducceeism, both groups Y'Shua hated. These two groups took "The Law",
and made it into a set of "rules" that needed to be followed by the LETTER
of "The Law", even going as far as to make additions to "The Law" by
including traditions that are not commanded by YHVH, as exposed below.

Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing soever I (YHVH) command you, observe to do it: thou
shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
The Five Principles of Phariseeism (according to Nehemiah
Gordon)

1. There are two Torahs.

A.The Written Torah (5 books of Moses).

1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy

B.“Oral” Torah (The Talmud)

1. Mishnah
2. Jerusalem Talmud
3. Babylonian Talmud
4. Midrash

2. Rabbis have “absolute” authority.

YHVH's authority is in heaven and not on earth, therefore MAN has
the authority to change, interpret and amend the Tanakh (Torah, the
Prophets, and the Writings; the Hebrew Scriptures.).

3. Midrashic Interpretation (not contextual, linguistic, historical or

cultural)

The context, linguistics, historical or cultural aspects of any given

word or verse are not taken into consideration when interpreting the
Bible.

4. Sanctified Traditions (customs becoming law; i.e. kippah, ritual hand

washing, black clothing, ritual praying, etc.)

Traditions or customs found acceptable to the Rabbinical Authorities

are added into "The Law" and made as law, even if they have no basis
 in the Tanakh.

5. Commandments of Men or “Takanot”

An enactment by the Rabbis in order to uphold (in their opinion only)

the spirit of the Torah's laws.

All of this began in 20 C.E., and not with Moshe (Moses).

A Brief History of Christianity: Blasphemous Doctrines

Christianity is not a religion that had it's beginnings with The True Messiah
(Y'Shua), as most believe, it is much newer version of a much older religion
than that. Christianity (The Title) didn't begin until after the Nicene Creed
was developed in 325 C.E.; a blasphemous doctrine that departed almost
entirely from what Messiah Y'Shua taught, namely on key points he made.
The "Roman Church Fathers" even RENAMED Messiah Y'Shua as "Jesus
Christ", thereby removing the “Jewish-ness” from their newly created
“savior”. Indeed, Christianity revolves around this manmade man, "Jesus
Christ," who was given a new identity, that isn't even a shadow of who
Messiah Y'Shua truly WAS. When it came to "The Law", the early "Roman
Church Fathers" decided that it should be naught, thereby "nailing it to the
cross" and telling their followers that they didn't need to follow ANY of
"The Law", selling cheapened salvation to them at a high price. This group
TOOK AWAY from "The Law", and this taking away is called
antinomianism, and is just as wrong as the adding to "The Law" by modern
Judaism (Phariseeism).

Definition: Strong’s #G0459 Anomos

1. Destitute of (the Mosaic) law
A. Of the Gentiles

2. Departing from "The Law", a violator of "The Law", lawless,

 wicked

Mark 15:28
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered
with the transgressors.

Luke 22:37
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished
in me, And he was reckoned amongst the transgressors: for the things
concerning me have an end.

Acts 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of YHVH, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and
slain:

1 Corinthians 9:21
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law
to YHVH, but under "The Law" to Messiah,) that I might gain them
that are without law.

1 Timothy 1:9
Knowing this, that "The Law" is not made for a righteous man, but for
the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for
unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of
mothers, for manslayers,

2 Peter 2:8
(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing,
vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

“In theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group are
under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by
religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar opposite of legalism,
which is the notion that obedience to a code of (Jewish) religious law is
necessary for salvation.” However, Christianity has unwittingly created their
own set of rules for salvation (aka "The Roman Road to Salvation").

A Brief History of Antinomianism:

The Tanakh:

The two different types of law described in the Tanakh are The Mosaic Law
and The Davidic Law. The Mosaic Law being the vows themselves, and
Davidic being the intention behind the vows (which we know and teach as
SELF-less love).

The New Testament or Apostolic Epistles:

Christianity states that, Paul of Tarsus, in his Letters, claims several times
that believers are saved by the unearned grace of YHVH, and not by our
own good works, "lest anyone should boast", and placed emphasis on
orthodoxy (right belief) rather than orthopraxy (right practice). However, we
know this to be untrue, as Paul himself upheld the Spirit of "The Law". No
one saved by YHWH should boast because the Spirit was gifted even though
it was undeserved, not because of a lack or abundance of good works. The
soteriology (the study of salvation) of Paul's statements in this matter has
always been a matter of dispute; the ancient Gnostics interpreted Paul to be
referring to the manner in which embarking on a path to enlightenment
ultimately leads to enlightenment, which was their idea of what constituted
salvation. In what has become the modern mainstream Christian orthodoxy,
however, this is interpreted as a reference to salvation simply by believing
that Christianity is valid (it is NOT); Christianity is antinomianism in its most
impure form. See also New Perspective on Paul.

Paul used the term freedom in Messiah, for example, Galatians 2:4, and it is
clear that some (mistakenly) understood this to mean lawlessness (i.e. not
obeying Mosaic Law). For example, in Acts 18:12-16 Paul is accused of
"persuading .. people to worship YHVH in ways contrary to "The Law"" and
in Acts 21:21 .
 James "The Just" explained his situation to Paul:
"They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living
among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to
circumcise their children or observe the customs." (NRSV).

Note: Of course, we know this to be inaccurate, as James was

simply explaining to Paul what the Jerusalem church thought.
Of course, Paul wasn't doing any such thing. He was
encouraging the Gentiles to observe "The Law", but with the
proper Spiritual INTENT, which is circumcision of the heart;
physical circumcision was merely a foreshadow of this
INTENT.

The Catholic Encyclopedia: Judaizers notes:

"Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the
Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles,
but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians
9:20). Thus, shortly after he circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), he was in
the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at
Jerusalem (21:26 sqq.)." Yet another error by the catholic church found in
their "doublespeak".

The Tübingen school of historians, founded by F. C. Baur, holds that in

Early Christianity, there was conflict between Pauline Christianity and the
Jerusalem Church led by James the Just, Simon Peter, and John the
Apostle, the so-called "Jewish Christians" although in many places Paul
writes that he was an observant Jew, and that True Worshippers should
"Uphold The Law" (Romans 3:31).

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they were not

straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter
before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of
 Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to
live as Jews?

. . . , part of the "Incident at Antioch", Paul publicly accused Peter of

judaizing.

Note: Paul, of course, wasn't accusing Peter of anything,

except being hypocritical.

Even so, he does go on to say that sins remain sins, and upholds by several
examples the kind of behavior that their opinion the church should not
tolerate. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 he cites Y'Shua's teaching
on divorce ("not I but the Lord") and does not reject it, but goes on to
proclaim his own teaching ("I, not the Lord"), an extended counsel
regarding a specific situation which some interpret as not in conflict with
what the Lord said.

Note: There was no conflict between the two, as they were

both inspired teachings and were consistent with one another –
meaning ALIKE in righteousness.

The Epistle of James, in contrast, states that our good works justify before
men our faith after salvation and we are to obey "The Law" of YHWH,
that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone, that faith
without works is dead (James 2:14–26). Historically, the presence of this
statement has been difficult for Protestants to rectify with their belief in
salvation by faith alone. Martin Luther even suggested that the Epistle
might be a forgery, and relegated it to an appendix in his Bible (although he
later came to accept its canonicity).
 Note: Faith without works is dead, just as works without faith
are dead, they go hand in hand, and must not be separated.

The Torah prescribes the death penalty for desecrating the Sabbath by
working (Exodus 31:14-17). To avoid any possibility of breaking the Torah
commands, the Pharisees formulated strict interpretations and numerous
traditions which they treated as laws, see Halakha. Y'Shua criticized the
Pharisees for this (Mark 7:7-9). The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Y'Shua
notes: "Y'Shua, however, does not appear to have taken into account the
fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and
that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet
Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity."

Note: Here we have the birth of modern Judaism (Phariseeism).

In the Gospel of Mark, Y'Shua's disciples were picking grain for food on a
Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). When the Pharisees challenged Y'Shua over
this, he pointed to Biblical precedent and declared that "the Sabbath was
made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Some claim Y'Shua rejected
complete adherence to the Torah. Most scholars hold that Y'Shua did not
reject "The Law", but directed that it should be obeyed in context. e.g., E.
P. Sanders notes: ". . . no substantial conflict between Y'Shua and the
Pharisees with regard to Sabbath, food, and purity laws. ... The church
took some while to come to the position that the Sabbath need not be kept,
and it is hard to think that Y'Shua explicitly said so."

Note: Messiah was instructing them to keep the Sabbath on its

proper day, but it was the INTENT that mattered. Indeed, man
was made for the Sabbath, as we have come to understand as a
Shadow of Things to Come.)

In the Gospel of Matthew, Y'Shua is sometimes portrayed as referring to

people he sees as wicked with the term ergazomenoi ten anomian e.g.
Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 13:40-43. Due to this negative context the term
has almost always been translated as evildoers, though it literally means
workers of lawlessness. In other words, Matthew appears to present
Y'Shua as equating wickedness with encouraging antinomianism.
Scholars view Matthew as having been written by or for a Jewish
audience, the so-called Jewish Christians. Several scholars argue that
Matthew artificially lessened a claimed rejection of Jewish law so as not to
alienate Matthew's intended audience. However, Y'Shua called for full
adherence to the commandments. (Matthew 5:19-21) He declared: "Do not
think that I have come to abolish "The Law" or the Prophets; I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them (to make replete)." (Matthew 5:17) A
parallel verse to Matthew 7:21 is James 1:22.”

Workers of lawlessness
It is interesting to take note of the conflict between those that keep "The
Law", and those who do not with respect to their individual beginnings.
Early Judaism, by making the laws stricter, was ADDING to "The
Law", while Early Christians, by making "The Law" void were
TAKING away from "The Law". Had either of these religions been left in
the pristine original form, we would have neither Christianity
(christopaganism) nor modern Judaism (Phariseeism); however, both deviate
from the INTENT of "The Law" itself.

The Intent of "The Law"

Recall this most misunderstood parable from Luke in which it is clear that
those who do not understand are the same ones that ignore "The Intent".

Luke 16: 19-31.

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine
linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain
beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And
 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich mans table:
moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that
the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:
the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes,
being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his
bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me,
and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and
cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said,
Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things,
and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou
art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great
gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot;
neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he
said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my
father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them,
lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto
him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

It must be ones "Intent" to Hear and See.

Ezekiel 40:4
And the man said unto me, Son of man, behold with thine (Spiritual)
eyes, and hear with thine (Spiritual) ears, and set thine heart
(innermost thoughts) upon all that I shall shew thee; for to the intent
that I might shew them unto thee art thou brought hither: declare all
that thou seest to the house of Israel.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of YHVH is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any
twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts
and intents of the heart.

Those that don't understand the "Intent of the Law" either don't want to
understand it (they have no desire to), or they think that they know better than
YHVH. They have no excuses, as these things are clearly understood and
seen. Mankind has been given all he needs to grasp this simple concept;
even without a witness, preacher or teacher.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The INTENTION of "The Law" is far different; in fact, "The Law" isn't even
LAW, per se, but a covenant or vow one makes with YHVH. It's an
agreement. You agree willfully to follow HIS commandments to the best of
your ability because you love HIM (and you don't expect anything in return
– not for salvation's sake, but for LOVE’s sake). This is no different than
what one agrees to in a marriage agreement. This is righteous and SELF-
less. The whole of "The Law" is based upon RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Matthew 22:34-40
34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to
silence, they were gathered together.
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question,
tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in "The Law"?
37 Y'Shua said unto him, Thou shalt LOVE YHVH with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt LOVE thy neighbor as
thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all of "The Law" and the
prophets.

Indeed, all "The Law" and the prophets are based on an "INTENT of
LOVE". This is why we profess that all of "The Commandments" are not
laws at all, but "The Words of A Marriage Vow" or "Covenant of Love"
with YHVH; for YHVH seeks an obedient and faithful bride