United Israel

While searching the web for the phrase “Preaching Moses”, I came across a sermon entitled, How Christians Should Regard Moses.

In this sermon, the preacher declares that in history there were only two occasions in which God gave a public sermon from heaven.  The first, he declared, is found in Exodus 19 and 20.  The second public sermon given by God, according to this preacher is described in the New Testament’s book of Acts in the second chapter.  Though not recorded by the preacher of this sermon, both of these events are reported to have taken place during the third month of the Hebrew year, 50 days after the Hebrew Festival of Passover at the Feast of Shavuoth or Pentecost..

The author of the sermon was not interested however in finding any correlation between the two events, but rather in pointing out the distinctions between the sermons called by him; (1) the Law and (2) the Gospel.  His sermon was intended to declare once and for all that “these two sermons are not the same”.  Note the language of the sermon on this very point from the text of the preacher’s sermon.

“Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is the law of God. The second is the Gospel. These two sermons are not the same. Therefore we must have a good grasp of the matter in order to know how to differentiate between them. We must know what the Law is, and what the gospel is. The Law commands and requires us to do certain things. The Law is thus directed solely to our behavior and consists in making requirements. For God speaks through the Law, saying, “Do this, avoid that, this is what I expect of you.” The Gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do or to avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the Law, does the very opposite and says, “this is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made of flesh for you, has let him be put to death for your sake.” So, then, there are two kinds of doctrine and two kinds of works, those of God and those of men. Just as we and God are separated from one another. So also these two doctrines are widely separated from one another. For the gospel teaches exclusively what has been given us by God and not – as in the case of the Law – what we are to do and give to God.”

The preacher continues in his sermon by comparing the two sermons to two kingdoms; (1) the temporal and (2) the Spiritual – where the temporal equates to the Law and the Spiritual to the gospel.

He then identifies yet another kingdom that resides between the temporal and the spiritual – one that is half and half as it were.  According to the preacher, it is constituted by the Jews, with commandments and outward ceremonies which prescribe their conduct toward God and men.

From this platform, he goes on to attempt to show that “here the Law of Moses has its place.”  While admitting some good within this middle kingdom, he is clear to show that those things which apply to Gentiles are only those which are “written by nature into their hearts”.  He is preaching this on behalf of a group he refers to as enthusiasts.  This group “reads Moses (the Law), extol him and bring up the way he ruled the people with commandments.  They try to be clever, and think they know something more than is presented in the gospel; so they minimize faith, contrive something new, and boastfully claim that it comes from the Old Testament. They desire to govern people according to the letter of the Law of Moses, as if no one had ever read it before.”

He sees no way to reconcile the two sermons. In fact he places them against one another using very strong language.  Notice the following quote from his sermon.

“We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts.  We will not have Moses as ruler or Lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either.”

He further tells those present at his sermon to tell those who would preach Moses that “Moses has nothing to do with us”.

The sermon goes on to state that the Sabbath is abolished and in fact he goes so far as to say that “not one little period in Moses pertains to us”.

Finally he seeks to set the record straight and inform the laity of why we should even keep Moses at all and not as he puts it, “sweep him under the rug”. He identifies three things “to notice in Moses”.

• Certain commandments are good for Christians.  Not, says he, because Moses gave them, but “because they have been implanted in me by nature” and “Moses agrees exactly with nature”. He goes on to share which commandments he gladly and willingly accepts.
• He says that he also accepts those things in Moses that he calls “the promises and pledges of God about Christ” – promises that as he puts it, “sustain faith”.
• The third thing to be seen in Moses as worth keeping it around are “beautiful examples of faith, of love and of the cross, as shown in the fathers, Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and all the rest”.

The sermon discussed above was delivered on this very date (August 27, 1525), 482 years ago by a preacher named Martin Luther as part of a series of seventy-seven sermons on Exodus preached between October 2, 1524 and February 2, 1527.

I could not let the day pass without taking notice that I stand with the historical Jesus against Martin Luther on the anniversary of his sermon (August 27, 2007) and declare that NOT one jot or one tittle will in no way pass from the Law until all be fulfilled – stating further that whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven, but whoever does and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

This gives me more reason than ever to Preach Moses Every Sabbath in the Synagogue – for those that abide in Christ ought to walk even as Jesus did.

More and more, followers of the Nazarene are turning towards things Hebraic and away from the anti-Torah tendencies of a church influenced by teachers such as Luther.

This article was submitted by Ross Nichols.  To learn more of his restoration vision, log in to www.RootsofFaith.org.

Through this summer I have listened to the new CD by Sinead O’Conner titled Theology many dozens of times–every chance I get. It is the most amazing collection of songs, put together with a skill, a unity of vision, and a power that one seldom encounters. I have not been moved so deeply on a spiritual level by a CD since Ten New Songs by Leonard Cohen (2005), whom I consider to be the high priest of a prophetic musical genre of this type. The power of O’Conner’s work is based on the raw power of her soul, as with all her work, but shaped, often word-for-word, by the words of the Hebrew Bible–namely Jeremiah, Isaiah, Job, and several of the Psalms, cast at times with a Jamaican flavor (Yah for Yahweh, etc.). For me at least the effect was to leave me speechless, sort of “slain in the spirit,” I think the term is, and I have no “charismatic” background or experience.

Cohen is Jewish, so one might expect to find biblical/Jewish themes in his words and music. But Sinead is an Irish Roman Catholic in background, so one has to wonder how she has come to her spiritual vision of things as expressed in this album. O’Conner clearly senses that the message of the original Jesus movement (John the Baptizer, Jesus, and James the Just) is that the group was powerfully shaped by the visionary perspective of the Hebrew Prophets (particularly Isaiah and Jeremiah) and certain of the Psalms. That vision centered on the notion of the Kingdom of God, with the will of God being realized on earth as in heaven, through a new world characterized by peace, justice, and righteousness. In my book, The Jesus Dynasty, I try to bring to the public a perspective that many scholars share–namely that there is a vast difference between the message Jesus preached and “Jesus as the message,” as touted by later “orthodox” Christians shaped by the visions of Paul, which wholly removed itself from a Jewish or Hebrew vision of things. Sinead seems to have tapped into that in an extraordinary way, but without any reference whatsoever to the “person” of Jesus per se, or anything one could recognizably call distinctively “Christian,” in the later dogmatic sense of the term. I noticed that Christianity Today eagerly latched onto Sinead for an interview when the album came out, but I sensed in reading it that the content must have been quite disappointing to those who might have hoped for something more along Christian evangelical lines. Sinead clearly values her Catholic upbringing on a cultural level, and she “loves Jesus,” as a “spiritual energy,” but she is sharply critical of orthodox Christianity and clearly rejects any kind of exclusive views of Jesus. If anything her view of “religion” and “faith” is shaped almost exclusively by the Hebrew Bible.

There are two discs with eleven songs each, with mostly the same songs recorded in different settings. The first, “The Dublin Sessions” is more acoustic and simple; the second, “The London Sessions,” has a full instrumental arrangement. I much prefer the former for its vocal intimacy and expression. Each disc ends with an interview with Sinead where she talks freely about how she came to do this particular album and what it means to her. You can listen to samples at Amazon.com.

James D. Tabor

As we slowly work through the thousands of pages of documents in the David Horowitz archive there are multiple surprises around every corner. What we are uncovering is truly amazing. Mr. Horowitz never discarded anything and we have his papers going back to about 1924, with a few things earlier. He was in touch with just about every President, King, diplomat, and world leader you can name, and often worked behind the scenes in ways that are only now coming to light. We are carefully copying and filing all the materials and putting them into topical and chronological order. I would estimate there are at least 100,000 separate items.

What we have found so far seems to easily lend itself to a biography that someday should be written. A good title might be:The Life of David Horowitz: The Untold Story. Back in 1949 David did publish an early autobiography titled Thirty-three Candles that covered his life up to the founding of UIWU in 1944. Copies are still available from our office for a modest donation to the David Horowitz Memorial Library. However, David lived through the end of the century, past his 99th year, so that volume covered only “half” his story. The best was yet to come.

There is a “behind the scenes” tale that has never been told. We recently came across this letter, written in August 1948, to Abraham Fuhrman, who was a loyal supporter of UIWU and David’s work in the early days. We found this profoundly moving and inspiring. The biblical Hebrew Prophet Joel speaks of the former and latter rains, prophetically, as does Hosea (see Joel 2-3; Hosea 5-6), and he says “afterwards” it will be that “your old men will dream dreams and your young men will see visions.”

David fervently believed that the inauguration of the prophetic “last days,” the “footsteps of the messiah,” as the rabbis call it, did indeed begin in the late 1880s with the “return to Zion,” and more particularly in 1927 with various prophetic events in the Holy Land. David recorded hundreds of his dreams and we are collecting them as we work through the archives, but dreams are dreams, often vague and subject to varied interpretation. Rarely does one get as clear as this one. And notice the date of the dream–the 9th of Ab!–an historically fateful day in Jewish history.

This was months before the November, 1948 election, where everyone predicted Republican Thomas Dewey as the winner. Horowitz had already been involved in the Spring of 1948 in some behind the scenes moves in both the newly constituted UN (influencing three Central American votes) and with President Truman via his staff, to influence things in favor of the establishment of the State of Israel. President Truman recognized the fledgling “State” the morning after its declaration of Independence, to the chagrin of most of those in his State Department.

We hope you will find this dream, which came on the “9th of Ab,” as significant as we have. For those too young to remember or who have forgotten their history you might want to refresh your memory on the Presidential election of 1948 when even major newspapers, such as the New York Times declared, “Thomas E. Dewey’s Election as President is a Foregone Conclusion.” Top pollsters predicted a Dewey win, as did leading national political writers. In fact, with the exception of Truman, everyone else was certain Dewey would be elected. Months before the election, Life magazine ran a cover of a picture of Dewey with a caption that read, “The Next President of the United States.” Headline after headline screamed Dewey as President. The election became known as “The Great Truman Surprise.”