We Know They Would, Because They Did

Recently, I was part of a conversation with a Jewish man who is not a Messianic Jew. To clarify that statement, I understand that almost all Jews have some type of belief in a Messiah and/or a Messianic Age, which would, by definition, make them “Messianic” in some sense. However, for the sake of this writing, I am defining Messianic Jews as those who believe that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah.

During the conversation, the man explained that he could not believe in the writings of the New Testament because of what he considered inconsistencies. When asked what those inconsistencies were, he responded:

“For instance, the trial of Yeshua, according to the New Testament, was filled with violations of Torah. Just a few examples: capital trials could only be held during the day, trials were not allowed on Holy Days, and formal sessions of the Sanhedrin had to take place in the Hall of Hewn Stones (the Lishkat Ha-Gazit) within the Temple complex. Yeshua was tried in the private palace of the High Priest, Caiaphas. Regarding the blasphemy rule, accusations of blasphemy were only valid if the explicit, holy name of G-D was pronounced by the accused. Also, according to the unanimous conviction rule in Jewish law, a unanimous guilty verdict in a capital case was viewed with suspicion. These are only a few of the Jewish laws broken or ignored according to the New Testament account.”

He went on to say:

“If it was the religious leaders who accused and convicted Yeshua, then, because they were religious, they would not have violated or abrogated the Torah in the ways that the New Testament authors claim in their accounts.”

After he finished sharing his thoughts, I took a moment to formulate my response. Rather than arguing directly against each of his points of contention, I simply asked the question:

“Who was Caiaphas?”

He said:

“Caiaphas was the High Priest of Israel at the time of Yeshua’s trial.”

Then I asked again:

“Yes, but who was Caiaphas?”

He looked a little surprised by my repeating the question, so I went on to explain:

“Caiaphas was appointed as the High Priest of Judea in 18 CE by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus. The Romans heavily controlled Judea during this time. Caiaphas secured this highly political religious position through Roman appointment rather than traditional hereditary succession. In other words, Caiaphas, the High Priest of Israel, was a political appointee, and that, in and of itself, was a violation of the Torah.”

I continued:

“The High Priest was arguably the most important position in Israel. His role was to serve as an intermediary between Israel and G-D, and he was the only human permitted to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur to make atonement for the nation. In fact, the atonement of the entire nation depended on the High Priest.

I would posit that the appointment of the High Priest was among the most important commandments in the Torah, second only to loving G-D and loving your neighbor. In fact, having a High Priest provided the atonement necessary for us to fully love G-D and our neighbor.

Yet, with the appointment of Caiaphas, the religious leaders in Israel had already violated the

commandment stating that the High Priest must come through hereditary succession. If the religious leaders of that day were willing to violate such an important commandment, why would we assume they would not also compromise on the commandments and laws listed above?”

I went on to explain that because men are corrupt and seem to fall away quickly from obedience to the Word of G-D, the basis of our faith cannot rest upon the decisions, opinions, or edicts of men, but must instead be founded upon the Word of G-D. Our faith and beliefs must begin in Genesis and continue through the book of Revelation.

We can certainly learn and gain wisdom from men’s interpretations and opinions regarding what the text says. However, if there is disagreement between man’s traditions and G-D’s written Word, we must always follow G-D’s Word.

It does not matter whether the people who changed the text or established traditions conflicting with the text were Jewish or Gentile, or whether they were “Rabbis” or “Church Fathers.” It does not even matter if those who made the changes personally knew and studied with Yeshua, the Apostles, or the Disciples. If they changed, abrogated, or abolished something plainly stated in the Holy Scriptures, then we must reject what they said and follow the Bible.

As you consider what I have said, please remember that Judas was personally discipled by Yeshua, and yet he betrayed Him for thirty pieces of silver. Peter was also personally discipled by Yeshua, and yet he denied Him three times.

If those examples are not enough to demonstrate that we cannot simply accept changes to the plain text of Scripture merely because they come from respected leaders, then consider this: just because someone was a Rabbi or a Church Father who was taught by a sage, Apostle, or Disciple does not automatically make everything they taught correct.

If they taught or wrote that we are no longer responsible for observing things the Scriptures command us to observe, or if they changed the times or days the Scriptures command us to keep, then we must not accept their word over G-D’s Word simply because they were taught or mentored by one of the Apostles or Disciples.

Remember this: every one of the epistles included in the New Testament was written because churches established by the Apostles and/or Disciples had already begun teaching error. The communities in Galatia had succumbed to another gospel. The Corinthians had accepted some of the most ungodly sexual immorality among them.

I could continue through each epistle, but I believe the point is clear. Within only a few years, congregations started by the Apostles had allowed deviant doctrines into their beliefs. Every one of them had been started by someone connected by what is now called “Apostolic Succession,” yet each allowed false doctrine to creep into the community.

As more time passed, more rejection of the plain text of Scripture took place. For example, the Biblical Holy Days were either moved from their G-D-assigned dates and times or replaced entirely. Commandments concerning marriage were changed or abolished. G-D’s dietary restrictions were set aside, and G-D’s covenant with Israel was transferred to “the Church.”

The list of these changes goes on and on, and many accept them simply because “someone knew someone” or was taught or mentored by someone else, even when those teachings directly contradict G-D’s written Word.

So when someone, like the man mentioned above, claims, “I can’t believe this because the religious leaders would never have allowed violations of G-D’s Word,” I simply reply:

“What in the history of mankind makes you think religious leaders would not violate or break G-D’s commandments just because they were religious leaders?”

After all, Moses had barely finished writing the Torah when Korach, himself a religious leader, sought to rebel against what G-D had established in His Word.