One morning I sat at my kitchen counter with a cup of coffee and 1 and 2 Timothy open, reading slowly. I had read those two letters for years, as they have been commonly accepted. That morning Sha’ul (Paul) made sense, line after line, and nothing in or about him had changed.

Here is the text as it stands. “We know that the Torah is good, if a person uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the Torah is not laid down for a righteous one, but for the lawless and insubordinate,” 1 Timothy 1:8-9, and then a list that runs to the end of verse 10. Six verses later the same pen writes, “Messiah Yeshua came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost,” 1 Timothy 1:15. And the first psalm says of the righteous man, the tzaddik, כִּי אִם־בְּתוֹרַת יְהוָה חֶפְצוֹ, his delight is in the Torah of YHWH, and on His Torah he murmurs day and night, Tehillim, Psalms 1:2.

Most of us were handed verse 9 with its accepted meaning already attached, and people who loved me did the same; that is how it was presented to me. The Torah is not for the righteous. I have been made righteous by trusting Yeshua (Jesus), so the Torah is not for me; I am forgiven for everything I have ever done, and obedience and repentance are not conditions of anything. A sincere man can preach that for thirty years and point to the verse every time, and he is not lying; nearly every clause of it is true.

Set the three passages side by side, and something does not sit right. Verse 9 says the Torah is not laid down for the righteous one. The psalm says the righteous one delights in the Torah day and night, which is a strange thing to say of a man it was withdrawn from. And the apostle who wrote verse 9 would not take the seat it describes; he put himself at the head of the list on the other side of the sentence. If the same man wrote both, which of his two sentences have you been quoting?

The word to carry is tzaddik, צַדִּיק, the righteous one, the person-noun of tzedek. The way I take this, the Tanakh never hands the title to a man who claims it; it shows him by his walking, and the first psalm describes him by where he does not walk, stand, or sit, and by what he delights in. The Greek under 1 Timothy 1:9, dikaios, is the Greek Tanakh’s word for that same man. Whether the tzaddik is a standing a man reaches or a road he keeps, and what that does to verse 9 in the mouth of the pulpit that quotes it, is the essay’s work, and I would rather you reach it with the chapter open than take it from me.

I read these two letters for years as what they had become. Then one morning at my kitchen counter, coffee in hand, reading slowly with the context on, Sha’ul made sense, and nothing in him had changed; what had changed was how I was reading. The smallest thing I can ask is twelve minutes tonight with your own Bible open: all of 1 Timothy 1, verses 1 to 20, then Shemot, Exodus 20:2-17, then Tehillim, Psalms 1:1-3, in that order, and no one reading them to you.

What waits in No One Makes the Mark is the list in verse 10 read beside the mountain, Sha’ul’s own résumé set beside the one word he used for his years, and the dates on which the release reading was tried and lost. The verses are laid out for you to check.

Your brother in the Way,
Sergio

Every article on this Substack is free, and it will stay free. If you choose to pay for a subscription, nothing here unlocks.

Your paid subscription gives you a paid seat at The Berean Table, and it helps carry this work. To take your seat, register at the Table and send me a direct message here once you have; I open it by hand.

Subscribe now

I was in the room once when a friend asked the pastor a question. The pastor asked him whether he had a degree in theology. My friend said no, and the pastor said, “This discussion’s over.” It is a small scene about a very old thing: who stands between a believer and the text.

Here is the text as it stands. Of the Messiah, Ephesians says: “He is our peace, who made both one and broke down the middle wall of the fence, the hostility, in His flesh, setting aside the law of commandments in decrees,” Ephesians 2:14-15. From His own mouth: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill,” Matthew 5:17. And Sha’ul (Paul), writing to Rome: “Do we then nullify the Torah through trust? By no means; on the contrary, we uphold the Torah,” Romans 3:31.

Most of us were handed the first passage with its meaning already attached, and people who loved me handed it to me. The wall was the Torah. It stood between Jew and Gentile; the Messiah ended it so that the two could be one, and the Sabbath, the feasts, and the commandments went down with it. That is the oldest and widest reading of the verse; it is held by serious people, and it is a reading of words that really do say a law of commandments was set aside.

Set the three passages side by side and something does not sit. If the wall was the Torah, then Matthew 5:17 and Romans 3:31 cannot mean what they say. If those two mean what they say, then Ephesians 2:15 cannot mean what we were handed. One of the three has to give, or the wall was something else. What stood between the two peoples?

There is a Hebrew way of telling a story that holds its answer in the middle. A chiasm tells it once, tells it again from the other side, and sets the turning point at the center, so that neither half makes sense until you find the middle. The question above is asking for the middle.

The word to carry is kapar, כָּפַר, to cover. In Bereshit, Genesis 6:14 it is what a man does to an ark with pitch, inside and out, and in Vayikra, Leviticus 16:16 it is what is done on the Day for the sanctuary and the people. The way I take this, the word puts a different question to the wall than the one we were handed: not what was abolished, but what was covered, and for whom. Hold the word, and watch what it does.

I stand at the same fork. My safeguard is looking at Scripture alone first, in context: who were they talking to, what were they talking about, and how would they have heard it. The smallest thing I can ask is ten minutes tonight with your own Bible open: Ephesians 2:13-18, then Matthew 5:17-19, then Romans 3:31, in that order. Write down one line about what you think stood in the middle.

What waits in Two Walls, One Veil: The Prepayment Nobody Preaches is the wall read three ways, each with its owner, and the one verse all three have to answer to. The sources are laid out for you to check.

Your brother in the Way,

Sergio

Every article on this Substack is free, and it will stay free. If you choose to pay for a subscription, nothing here unlocks.

Your paid subscription gives you a paid seat at The Berean Table, and it helps carry this work. To take your seat, register at the Table and send me a direct message here once you have; I open it by hand.

Subscribe now

Friends,

We’ve got a lot done. Over the past few weeks, The Berean Table has been rebuilt from the inside, and I want you to see it.

Prayer requests

Post a request with your first name or without it. We read every request before it goes on the wall, so it stays a place you can trust. When someone prays for you, you will know.

See the wall and add a request

Table Talk

A place to say what you are studying this week, ask the table a question, and attach a passage, an essay or a Hebrew word. Reading is open to everyone. Posting needs a free account.

Join the conversation

What we are building next

We are building a Bible study app for the table. Two things you will see in it:

• Hover a word, see its Strong’s entry. The number, the Hebrew or Greek, what the word means, and how it is used, in the margin beside the text.

• Follow a word’s root across the Scriptures. Tap a word and see where else its root appears.

I will tell you the day it opens.

Also new

• Your account page. Your library, your profile and photo, your forum activity, and a verse for each day. Open your account

• Better discussion under every essay. Profile photos, and replies that nest one level. Read an essay

• “In this essay.” Every essay now has a short contents list, so you can jump to the part you came for.

• For contributors. The Submit page is rebuilt, with a checklist that tells you when your essay is ready. Submit an essay

If something does not work, write to hello@bereantable.com. I would rather hear it from you than find it myself.

Shalom!

Sergio

If you are a paid subscriber here, you get a free paid subscription over there. If you haven’t registered yet, do so here: bereantable.com/join just join and send me a private message

The mountain is smoking. The trumpet sounds, the lightning flashes, and the people stand far off, trembling. They go to Moshe (Moses) with one request: speak with us yourself and we will hear, but let not God speak with us, lest we die, Shemot, Exodus 20:18-19.

Most of us were handed this passage with its meaning already attached. A holy God and a frightened people need someone standing between them, and Moshe stands there. HaShem, the reading goes, approved the arrangement Himself. When Moshe retells that day in Devarim, Deuteronomy 5:28, HaShem says He heard the sound of their words, and the answer that comes back is that they have done well in all they have spoken. Every faithful pastor since belongs to that line, preaching what his teachers knew, and he can point to the text for it. The mountain gets a sermon and the tent gets another, and the two are rarely set side by side. Five chapters after the fire, the same voice says what it wants: let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them, Shemot, Exodus 25:8.

The speech in Devarim goes on with a wish: oh that they had such a heart in them, to fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it might go well with them and with their children forever, Devarim, Deuteronomy 5:29. The way I take this, HaShem grants the request and, in the same breath, wishes them more. The voice they asked to keep at a distance heard what they said, and then asked for a place to live among them. Was the go-between a mercy for a people who could not bear the fire, or the first stone of a wall between them and Him? I do not know which it was for them.

In Shemot, Exodus 25:8, the word to carry is shakhan, to settle in and stay. The Hebrew has it as וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם, veshakhanti betokham, that I may dwell among them. Its noun is mishkan, the dwelling, the tent they were told to build. The people’s verb in that verse is make. His is shakhan, and the place He means to settle is the middle of them. As I read it, every board and curtain of instruction that follows hangs from that one clause. I follow the root through the rest of the Bible, and the gatekeeping with it, and near the far end there is a measurement. I came on it in Revelation, reading it in context, and I knew in my gut what it was. Nothing in the text announces it, and I would rather you come on it the way I did.

It took me three years of writing at this table and a study through Revelation before the gatekeeping story came clear, and it is still coming clearer. The smallest thing I can ask is ten minutes tonight with your own Bible open: Bereshit, Genesis 3:8, then Shemot, Exodus 25:8, then John 1:14, then Revelation 21:3, in that order.

The measurement waits in Breath to Dwelling: The Arc Nobody Preaches, with the road the root takes from the tent to the end of Scripture and the dated church documents on the go-between. The verses are laid out for you to check.

Your brother in the Way,
Sergio

Every article on this Substack is free, and it will stay free. If you choose to pay for a subscription, nothing here unlocks.

Your paid subscription gives you a paid seat at The Berean Table, and it helps carry this work. To take your seat, register at the Table and send me a direct message here once you have; I open it by hand.

Subscribe now

Whether you realize it or not, you have been waiting for a Shofar your whole believing life.

It is in the verses you memorized before anyone taught you what they sat next to: “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God”, 1 Thessalonians 4:16. “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet”, 1 Corinthians 15:52. The hope you carry is trumpet-shaped. It has been ever since the first time somebody told you that Yeshua is coming back.

Here is what I bet nobody at church ever told you. Your Bible has a day on its calendar whose entire content is that sound, and guess what, it lands this week.

The Torah calls it a set day: “In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a solemn rest, a memorial proclaimed with the blast of trumpets, a holy convocation”, Vayikra, Leviticus 23:24. And again: “It is a day for you to blow the trumpets”, Bamidbar, Numbers 29:1. Yom Teruah. The day of the blast.

Pay attention; I want you to notice something strange about it, because the strangeness is the invitation. Every other appointed day carries its reason on its face. Pesach remembers the night HaShem brought Israel out. Sukkot remembers the booths. Yom Teruah is given no stated reason at all. Rest. Blast. Remember. That is the whole instruction: a day made of sound and memory, with its purpose left open like a door.

For the waykeeper reading forward, that open door is exactly where the trumpet of 1 Thessalonians walks in.

One piece of honesty before we go further, because this table deals in honest weights. Your Jewish neighbors call this day Rosh Hashanah, the head of the year, and that name comes from the later tradition, not from the Torah, whose own new year for counting months arrives in spring, Shemot, Exodus 12:2. I say that without heat. Names drift in every house, mine included. But a waykeeper should know what the day’s own book calls it, and the book calls it the day of the blast.

Now look at whose day it is, because this is the real hinge. When Leviticus 23 opens the calendar, HaShem does not say “the feasts of the Jews.” He says: “the appointed times of YHWH, which you shall proclaim as holy convocations; they are My appointed times”, Vayikra, Leviticus 23:2. The word is moadim, appointments, from the same root as the tent of meeting. These are not one people’s cultural holidays that another people politely declines. They are meetings He set, and He calls them His.

And He has kept them on schedule. The spring appointments were kept to the day: Pesach, and the Lamb; the firstfruits, and the empty tomb; Shavuot, and the Spirit poured out on the very feast that remembers Sinai. When Sha’ul (Paul) calls the appointed times “a shadow of the things to come”, Colossians 2:17, the participle is present tense. Things still coming. The fall appointments are the ones that remain open, and the first of them is a day whose only content is a blast and a summons to remember. A phrase like “at the last trumpet” means little to a man with no calendar. To a man holding this one, it reads like a date circled in a hand he recognizes.

You were not told any of this for a reason, and that reason has a very real paper trail: the calendar was legislated away, at Nicea and after it, in the same generation that ordered believers to work on Shabbat. I have walked that history elsewhere and I am not walking it again today, because today I am not here to hand you a grievance. I am here to hand you an inheritance that has been sitting in your house unopened.

So hear the frame in context, brother, because this is the Way Forward lane, and I keep it constructive. This is not a new obligation arriving at your door; the council of Acts 15 said what it said, and I defend it. Nobody owes me a shofar. But when the real blast comes, the one your hope is shaped like, I want to be a man who recognizes the sound because he kept the rehearsals. That is what a moed is to a waykeeper. Not homework. A rehearsal dinner with the Bridegroom’s family, and your name was always on the list.

The particulars for this year, honestly given: the day begins at sundown this Friday, September 11. It falls on Shabbat this year, so most synagogues will hold the shofar until Sunday morning, and brothers who reckon by the sighted moon may land a day apart from the fixed calendar. Let the dispute stay small. The rehearsal is bigger than the reckoning.

Here is the whole assignment, and it costs ninety seconds. Friday at sundown, stop. Read Vayikra, Leviticus 23:23-25 and Bamidbar, Numbers 29:1 out loud. Then read 1 Thessalonians 4:16 out loud, and let those texts sit in the same room together, maybe for the first time in your life. If you can stand within earshot of a shofar this weekend, many congregations sound it Sunday, go stand there. That is all. No membership, no measuring. Just a waykeeper, learning the sound before the day he hears it for real.

Check out this awesome gift by

https://hebrewbyinbal.com/pages/greeting26

Selah

You have rehearsed for lesser things all your life: fire drills, weddings, the national anthem before a game. What does it say that the sound you are staking eternity on has a rehearsal you have never attended?

The one appointed day with no stated reason is the one filled with trumpet blasts. Sit with why the reason might have been left open.

And this Friday at sundown, when you read those verses aloud: what will you do differently while you wait, now that the waiting has appointments?

May the shalom of our Abba tune your ear to the sound, shalom v’shalvah.

Your brother in the Way,

Sergio.

Subscribe now

(Names, quickly: Yeshua is Jesus, Kefa is Peter, Sha’ul is Paul, Vayikra is Leviticus. Torah means instruction.)

Picture the man this post is for, because I intend to describe him fairly. He loves the Lord. He prayed over his breakfast this morning and meant it, and if you asked about what was on the plate he would give you 1 Timothy 4:4 from memory. He is not being defiant. He was taught that a sheet came down from heaven, a voice spoke, and the menu question was settled on a rooftop before his tradition was a century old.

He has read the story. Most people who cite it have. What almost nobody does is sit with the two strangest things in it.

The man in the vision refused. Three times. To a voice from heaven. And the text says what happened next: “Kefa was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean”, Acts 10:17. The man on the roof did not think it was about lunch. Scripture tells you the meaning was not the surface, in so many words, before anyone knocks at the gate.

Then Kefa walks into a gentile house and interprets his own vision, out loud, in public: “God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean”, Acts 10:28. Any man. Not one syllable about the plate. And when Yerushalayim demanded an accounting in the next chapter, he retold the whole thing, sheet included, and the room drew its conclusion in the scene’s last verse: “Then to the gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” Follow the story from the roof to the verdict. Nobody eats anything. The vision spent the food categories as a parable about the fence around the nations, and the man who saw it said so. The popular reading keeps the parable and throws away the interpretation the text supplies.

There is a reason this is hard to see in English, and it is one word wide. Your Bible prints “unclean” over three different words. Tamei is the Torah’s own category from Vayikra 11. Akathartos is the Greek that carries it. And koinos, common, is neither: it means a thing made ordinary by contact or association, the category of unwashed hands and doubtful tables, a fence the later tradition built well back from the Torah’s line. Kefa uses two of these words in one breath on the roof: “I have never eaten anything common and unclean.” Two words, because to a first-century Jew they were two things. The whole argument runs through that seam, and English paves it over.

Now take that seam to Mark 7, the other pillar of the abolition reading, and watch what it exposes. The dispute that opens the chapter is about eating bread “with common hands”, unwashed hands, the tradition of the elders. And here is the detail I have never once heard from a pulpit: every occurrence of “defile” in the entire chapter is the verb form of koinos. Five times. The Torah’s own word for its own food list never appears in the scene. So when the narrator’s aside says all foods are cleansed, the first-century question is: cleansed with respect to which charge? The one on the table. No food Torah puts in Israel’s mouth becomes common because the hands that held it were unwashed. Matthew heard it exactly that way and wrote the conclusion down in one line: “to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone”, Matthew 15:20. Read it the other way and Yeshua nullifies a commandment of God in the middle of the speech where he condemns men for nullifying commandments of God.

The honest part, because I do not sell either. The other side has real cards. The participle in Mark 7:19 is masculine in the better manuscripts, which makes “declaring all foods clean” the narrator’s own gloss, and R.T. France defends that reading better than anyone. And there is evidence that by the first century the two “unclean” words had started to drift together, which aims directly at my hinge. Paid subscribers get both at full strength, along with an argument from my own side that I take out back and shoot, because a case you have only heard defended is a case you do not actually hold.

And the line I will not cross, stated up front: none of this obligates a gentile believer to keep kashrut. The one council that ever ruled on the question, Acts 15, handed down four abstentions and not the full yoke, and that answer stands exactly as written. This post removes a proof text from one side. It does not hand the other side a commandment. The man at breakfast is not indicted here. He was handed a reading, the way we were all handed readings. The handing is the subject of this series.

Where I stand: I keep the food laws, for the reason the text gives rather than any the text does not. “You shall be holy to Me, for I YHWH am holy, and have set you apart from the peoples”, Vayikra 20:26. Distinction, practiced at the most ordinary act a body performs, three times a day. What I want from you is smaller than agreement: read the texts whole before you quote them at half their length. Both sides. Every time.

Fifteen minutes, nothing to buy: open Blue Letter Bible to Acts 10:14 and click the interlinear. Two words: koinos, G2839, and akathartos, G169. Click each and read five occurrences. Then read Acts 10:28 out loud, once, and write down who Kefa says the vision was about, in his words rather than anyone else’s.

Selah. Which of these texts have you quoted at half its length, and to whom? And Kefa said no to a voice from heaven three times out of faithfulness to the word he already had. When did you last check a new teaching against the word you already had, and what did it cost you?

Shalom v’shalvah, your brother in the Way, Sergio

Below the gate: the PDF. One designed document you can print and put on the table with your people. Inside it: the case against my reading built in seven strands with its best defenders named, the First Maccabees evidence that nearly breaks my hinge, the health argument executed in public, where the “ceremonial law” division actually comes from (it has a birthday), the exact condition under which I would admit I am wrong, and the study guide for walking your group through all of it. The article is free and always will be. The PDF is how paid subscribers keep it that way.

Subscribe now

Read more

(Names, quickly: Yeshua is Jesus, Sha’ul is Paul, Moshe is Moses, Devarim is Deuteronomy. Torah means instruction.)

A word before the verse, because I owe you one.

The first two posts in this series were really deep, and that is my fault. I should have toned them down. This one has been refined to cover the base idea, whole and honest, in a few minutes of your morning. If you want to dig deeper, the full argument and a study guide are waiting behind it.

Now, that being said.

Telos gar nomou Christos.

Four words, and you have almost certainly seen them stop right there. Christ is the end of the law. It fits on a slide. It settles an argument before anyone opens a lexicon.

The sentence has five more words. They are grammatically load-bearing, and the reading you were taught depends on them staying quiet.

Here is the whole clause: telos gar nomou Christos eis dikaiosunēn panti tō pisteuonti. Messiah is the telos of the Torah, unto righteousness, to everyone who trusts. Two qualifying phrases follow the famous part. The first tells you in what respect he is the end: with respect to righteousness. The second tells you for whom: everyone trusting.

Neither phrase is decoration. A sentence that reads “Messiah is the end of the law” makes a claim about whether Torah still exists. A sentence that reads “Messiah is the telos of Torah unto righteousness for everyone who trusts” makes a claim about a route to righteousness. Those are different claims, and only one of them is in the Greek. Sha’ul specified his own scope. Quoting him without it does not simplify him. It converts a narrow statement into a broad one, which is the oldest error in proof-texting.

And I am not going to do to you what the slide does. Telos really can mean end, and it really can mean goal, and this verse alone will not decide between them. Anyone who tells you the lexicon settles it is selling something. What settles it is the paragraph.

So look at what Sha’ul does two verses later, because it is the strangest move in the chapter and almost nobody works it. At Romans 10:6-8 he proves his gospel by quoting Devarim 30:11-14. Go read that passage tonight. Moshe is talking about the Torah: this commandment is not too hard for you, not far off, not in heaven, not beyond the sea. It is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart. The passage is Torah’s own advertisement for how reachable it is.

A man arguing that Torah has been terminated does not, three verses after terminating it, build his gospel on Torah’s advertisement. The citation only works if Sha’ul thinks he is describing the same nearness Moshe described. That is a continuity move performed in public, sitting inside the very paragraph the abolition reading depends on.

Now the honest part, because I do not sell either. The other side has real cards. The verse right before this one quotes Vayikra 18:5, the man who does these things shall live by them, and then contrasts it with the righteousness of faith. That contrast is the strongest argument for reading telos as termination, and it is not a stupid argument. Serious scholars sit on both sides of this verse: Cranfield and Badenas read goal, Moo and Schreiner read culmination with an ending in it, and none of them is a fool. There is also a detail in how Sha’ul quotes Devarim 30 that cuts against me, and I put it in front of paid subscribers at full strength rather than letting you discover it from someone else, because a case you have only heard defended is a case you do not actually hold.

What decides it for me is not a dictionary. It is that the termination reading requires Sha’ul to finish Torah in chapter 10, spend chapter 11 forbidding you to conclude Israel is finished, and answer his own question at 3:31, does faith nullify the Torah, with may it never be. The goal reading needs none of that. It reads the whole letter without the author changing his mind between chapters.

Where I stand: Messiah is what the instruction was aiming at, and in him the righteousness Torah pointed toward opens to everyone who trusts, gentiles included, which is the argument Sha’ul is actually making in this stretch of Romans. The scope clause says so. The Devarim quotation assumes so. I hold that with real confidence and without calling it settled, because it is not.

Fifteen minutes, nothing to buy: read Romans 9:30 through 10:13 in one pass, out loud if you can. Then open Sefaria, free, to Devarim 30:11-14 and read the paragraph Sha’ul quoted, including verse 11 where Moshe names his subject. Decide for yourself whether the man was retiring that passage or standing on it.

Selah. If Sha’ul stated the respect in which Messiah is the end, who gave anyone permission to quote him without it? And the next time a verse arrives already trimmed to fit an argument, what will you do before you repeat it?

Share

Below the gate: the PDF. One designed document you can print and put on the table with your people. Inside it: the case against my reading built to exhaustion in seven strands, the two alterations Sha’ul made to Devarim 30 that nearly break my position, an argument on my own side I killed in public, a concession the Reformed tradition earned from me, the exact condition under which I would admit I am wrong, and the study guide for walking your group through all of it. The article is free and always will be.

The PDF is how paid subscribers keep it that way.

Subscribe now

Read more

Rests on: Yirmeyahu 31 as the content of the new covenant, established in #1. Pays: the full post on Hebrews 8:13 that #1 owed you. Owes: the gentile obligation question, which is Acts 15 territory. And the positive case for Torah’s continuance, which this post does not make and cannot.

Paid tier. This is the verse the whole abolition case rests on, so I’m going to spend real time on the other side before I answer it.

A note on names, as promised, on every post. I use Hebrew names for Hebrew people and Hebrew books, because those are the names the men who wrote them answered to. Here is the key.

Yeshua is Jesus. Sha’ul is Paul. Moshe is Moses. Ya’akov is James. Yochanan is John. Chanokh is Enoch. Yehoshua is Joshua. Avraham is Abraham. Yirmeyahu is Jeremiah, Yeshayahu is Isaiah, Yechezkel is Ezekiel. Bereshit is Genesis, Shemot is Exodus, Vayikra is Leviticus, Devarim is Deuteronomy. Yerushalayim is Jerusalem, Yehudah is Judah. Tanakh is the collection most people call the Old Testament. Brit Chadashah, which means new covenant, is what they call the New Testament. Torah is the first five books, and it means instruction.

Read more

This one’s gated.

I know my paid subscribers deserve some special content.

That’s what I promised.

Rests on: nothing prior. This is the floor.

Read more

This one’s gated.

I know my paid subscribers deserve some special content.

That’s what I promised.

Read more

Say no mediation to a Protestant and he agrees with you. He doesn’t squirm — he quotes 1 Timothy 2:5 back at you before you finish the sentence, and he means it. His tradition was founded on saying it out loud against Rome. I was walking into rooms and prosecuting a count the jury had returned five hundred years earlier. A charge that costs the hearer nothing isn’t a charge. It’s a compliment he has learned to receive politely.

So I went back to look at who Yeshua was hardest on — not corrected, not warned, but pronounced woe over. Read Matthew 23 and Luke 11 and notice who is standing there. It is not the priesthood. The kohanim ran the sacrificial system; they were the mediating class by definition. The scribes and Pharisees were the interpreters — the teaching class. And that is where the woes fall: you have taken away the key of knowledge (Luke 11:52); you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces (Matthew 23:13). Not you inserted yourselves between men and atonement. You took the key. You shut the door.

The episode works through:

• A key is named for opening. Hebrew mafteach is built on patach, to open — the object named after the act. There is no Hebrew word for key meaning the thing that keeps you out. Greek splits the same root against itself: kleis in Luke, kleio, to shut, in Matthew. And the key was to gnosis — da’at underneath, the knowing of Hoshea 4:6 and the knowing Yirmeyahu 31:34 promised to everyone, least to greatest. They confiscated the key to the exact thing the covenant had just promised every child in the room.

• Rome’s two crimes. It mediated, and it also gatekept — the loud way. The Vulgate in a Europe that didn’t speak Latin. Arundel’s Constitutions of 1408 making English Scripture a crime. Hus burned in 1415, Wycliffe’s bones dug up and burned in 1428, Tyndale strangled and burned at Vilvoorde in 1536 for wanting a ploughboy to know more Scripture than the prelates. A gate that obvious trains your eye for locks and flames — and leaves you unequipped to see the second gate, which has neither.

• What the Reformation kept. Mediation went. Sola scriptura, the priesthood of all believers, the book in the vernacular. The custody did not go. Tyndale’s heirs inherited what he bought: the ploughboy has the book, in his own language, on his nightstand — and still waits until Sunday to be told what it means.

• The sanctuary is the gate. The sign says sanctuary — mikdash, chartered in one sentence: let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst (Shemot 25:8). Then look at what the room does with the middle. Chairs bolted one direction, a raised platform, one microphone among four hundred people, one name on the printed schedule — and the thing nobody wrote down: stand up mid-sermon and ask how did you get that out of the Hebrew, and it is not a question, it is an incident. The gate is not the opinion. It is the opinion plus the impossibility of testing it in the moment it is handed to you.

• He could be interrupted. At twelve, in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions (Luke 2:46). Both verbs. Four men tearing a hole in a roof over His head, and no rebuke for the interruption. Luke’s verb for Sha’ul in the synagogues is dialegomai — argument running both directions — nine times in Acts. And 1 Corinthians 14:29-31, where the man speaking is ordered to stop so a seated man can speak, and the congregation is given a job: let the others weigh what is said. Prophecy was on the floor when he commanded it. Kal v’chomer — if the room must weigh a prophet, how much more a man explaining a passage.

• The narrow exception. Five marks of a teacher this doesn’t describe, including the two that decide it: he teaches you how to dig without handing you the conclusion, and you can stop him on the spot without it being a scandal.

There is another key, and it is not in anybody’s pocket. He opens and no one shuts (Yeshayahu 22:22; Revelation 3:7-8). The actual key was never in the building, because it was never theirs to hold.

You were never locked out. You were told to wait in the lobby, and you believed it, because a good man told you gently and every chair in the room was pointed at him.

Shalom v’shalvah.

Nobody reasons his way into love. The attachment arrives first, uninvited, and then the mind goes to work — cataloging virtues, explaining away warnings, building a case that sounds airtight to everyone except the friends watching from outside. The conclusion was never on trial. The heart decided, and then the heart hired the mind.

The episode works through:

• The word behind the word. Your English Bible splits you in two — heart feels, head thinks, and the cool head polices the hot heart. Hebrew refuses the split. The lev is where a man thinks, plans, and talks to himself. Which is why Yirmeyahu 17:9 lands harder than the English carries it: the lev is aqov — crooked, uneven, heel-grabbing ground, from the same root that named Ya’akov. The organ that reasons is the organ that deceives. And the next verse names the only examiner left: I, YHWH, search the lev.

• Private logic. Adler’s term for reasoning built in service of a goal already chosen. Sha’ul filed the same finding without a laboratory — people “will accumulate teachers to suit their passions” (2 Timothy 4:3). Read the order of operations. Desire first. Teachers after.

• The same engine, dressed in robes. Roman courtroom vocabulary entering through Tertullian’s Latin. Anselm proving the atonement remoto Christo and discovering, to the letter, the necessities of the feudal honor system outside his window. Calvin arguing like the lawyer he was trained to be at Orléans and Bourges. The brilliance is the tell, not the defense — coherence measures investment, not truth. And the tell inside the tell: a tradition that teaches the fall corrupted every human faculty, then exempts the faculty that built the system.

• Where the two logics part. The lover eventually wakes up next to the actual person; reality keeps the breakfast appointment. An institution never has to. It writes conclusions into creeds before the questions arrive. The lover at least chose his beloved — yours was handed to you in the crib along with the finished arguments. And a person can surprise you back into the truth; a frame cannot speak.

• What keeps you hooked. The lights come down, the band swells, the music climbs for twenty minutes, and the lev files the feeling as evidence. The feeling is real. The filing is the fraud. The first-century assembly sang — a psalm at a table, a hymn before walking out into the night (Matthew 26:30). What it did not have was the maintenance schedule.

The Berean answer is not a colder heart. Luke praises the assembly at Berea for two things in one breath: they received the word with all eagerness, and they examined the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11). Eagerness honestly owned, carried to the text and put under oath. The intellect is not fired; it is reassigned — no longer counsel for the defense, now a witness. And the audit Yirmeyahu warned about becomes something David asks for: Search me, El, and know my lev (Tehillim 139:23-24).

One honest test closes the episode, and it is neither the quality of your defenses nor the depth of what you felt on Sunday: has the text ever overruled one of your loves? If your Bible has never cost you a conclusion you cherished, consider that you may not be reading it. You may be courting it, and it has been answering in your own voice.

Shalom v’shalvah.

This episode walks the sequence in order:

• 135 CE — Hadrian bans Jews from Jerusalem after the Bar Kokhba revolt. The city is rebuilt as Aelia Capitolina, and the unbroken line of fifteen Jerusalem bishops “of the circumcision,” running back to Ya’akov (James), ends. The next bishop is a gentile.

• 325 CE — The same empire that severed the root convenes the council that defines the faith without it. Macarius of Jerusalem attends — a gentile holding the seat of Ya’akov in a city no Jew could lawfully enter.

• The Notzrim — the Torah-keeping Jewish believers whose communities descended from the apostles’ own — could not sit at all, and within two generations were filed under heresy by Epiphanius for practicing what Ya’akov practiced.

• The Pascha ruling — the resurrection festival is detached from the fourteenth of Nisan. Constantine’s own circulated letter gives the reason: so that Christians might have “nothing in common” with the Jews. The stated ground was not exegesis. It was distance.

Along the way: the shape of Acts 15 against the shape of Nicea, and why a seating chart is a creed. The torn veil of Matthew 27 read against the covenant terms of Yirmeyahu 31 — Torah relocated, knowledge distributed, the mediating caste retired — and what it means that at Nicea the office came back enthroned, funded, and armed. The question of jurisdiction: the moedim are called mo’adei YHWH in Vayikra 23, fixed by His own word, and the only justification on record for moving one is an emperor’s motive standing where a text should be.

And the counterintuitive turn at the center: this ugly history is evidence for Yeshua, not against him. Rome spent three centuries failing to kill the movement, then absorbed it. Execution, then co-option. Institutions do not mobilize against nothing.

The episode closes where the essay closes — with Revelation 12:17 and the offspring the dragon makes war on: those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Yeshua. Both clauses, one people. Rome kept minutes. HaShem kept a remnant.

For the wild branch tempted to feel superior, and for the reader halfway out the church door, there is a word here for both.

Primary sources cited so you can check every date yourself: Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.5–6 and 5.23–25; Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.18–19; Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.9; Justin Martyr, First Apology31 and Dialogue with Trypho 11, 123, 135; Epiphanius, Panarion 29; Theodosian Code 16.1.2 and 16.2.

Shalom v’shalvah.

Sweet is the word the hymn chooses. Amazing grace, how sweet the sound. Sweet to whom? Ask that once and the song stops being background music.

Every Sunday, in tens of thousands of rooms, people sing this with their eyes closed and their hands open. Almost none can tell you who wrote it, when, or what he was doing while he wrote it. That is not their fault. It becomes their responsibility the moment someone tells them. So here is the telling.

Amazing Grace was written in 1772, in Olney, England, for a New Year’s sermon. Not on a slave ship. The ship is the version people prefer, because the ship makes it a rescue. It was not.

John Newton’s storm came in 1748. He called it his conversion. Then he went back. He captained slave ships after it. Three more purchasing voyages. When his health ended his sailing, he kept his money in the trade. Forty years passed between that storm and Thoughts Upon the African Slave Trade in 1788. Thirty-four of them came after his last voyage.

He kept logbooks. Careful ones. Names, numbers, cargo, mortality. And devotional entries in the same hand, on the same pages. He held prayer services on deck. Below the deck was the hold. His own later writing admits he abused enslaved women aboard those ships. When the pamphlet finally came he wrote that his heart now shudders. Read the tense. It did not shudder then, and then lasted decades.

Selah.

Sit with that. A man could pray on the boards and inventory the people beneath them, and nothing in him objected.

Now hold the hymn against it. It names a wretch and never names a sin. It celebrates sight and never sees a person. The many dangers, toils and snares are his own voyages, so providence is thanked for preserving the captain of a ship carrying human beings as freight. Grace teaches fear and grace relieves it, and nothing between those lines costs him anything. And when we’ve been there ten thousand years, in a stanza later singers grafted on, belongs to a we that was settled before anyone was born. The song kept growing in its own direction.

Then open Isaiah 58. They fast. They seek God daily. They delight to draw near. God refuses all of it and gives the reason: the yoke is still on someone’s neck. Amos 5 goes after the music by name. Take away from me the noise of your songs. I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters. Micah 6:8 sets the standard: do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God. The hymn attempts one of the three, and only inward.

Before I go further, know where I stand. I hold no denominational card. No founder’s name, no confession, no catechism standing between me and the text. I am a Karaite Jew, which in the simplest terms means Scripture alone is the authority. Not the rabbis, not the councils, not Calvin. Where the text speaks, I listen. Where men have added, I do not. So what follows is not one tribe swiping at another. It is a question about what any system does when it arrives before Scripture does.

The mechanism. This is not a claim that Calvinists are wicked people. Many abolitionists were Calvinists. It is a claim about what the system permits. If your standing is fixed and unfalsifiable, conduct is decoupled from status. If everyone is wretched, then calling yourself a wretch names nothing in particular. If assurance never expires, no alarm goes off. A man can be genuinely devout and genuinely monstrous at once, with nothing in the framework alerting him. That is more disturbing than calling him a hypocrite.

There is something else here, and it deserves naming. Listen to how the confession actually works. I was so wicked, so lost, so wholly incapable, that God reached down and took me anyway, and I could not have refused Him had I tried. Say it slowly. It arrives as humility. It functions as exemption. If you were incapable of resisting, you did not choose. If you did not choose, you cannot be held to account. The most self-abasing sentence in the vocabulary turns out to be the one that quietly excuses you from the dock.

And consider what that permits on the water. A man may name himself the chief of sinners on Monday, sing of grace on Tuesday, and on Wednesday take a woman by force in the hold. Beneath the deck he prayed on. The wickedness was never a debt he was obliged to settle. It was the credential.

But press one step further, because the deeper problem is not psychological. It is covenantal.

Covenant is bilateral. Two parties, terms, obligations, consequence. Exodus 19: if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant. There is an if in the sentence. Deuteronomy 30 sets life and death before the people and commands them to choose. Joshua 24: choose this day whom you will serve. The entire architecture presumes a party capable of answering.

Unconditional election removes the second party. What remains is not covenant. It is decree. A verdict handed down before the defendant existed.

And that is precisely why the neighbor vanishes from the song. Covenantal obligation always runs in two directions, toward God and toward the man beside you. Read the Ten Words. Half of them concern your neighbor. Strip out the bilateral structure and the horizontal obligation goes with it.

So the hymn is not merely self-absorbed. It is covenantally incoherent. It celebrates a relationship with God that no covenant in Scripture would recognize.

Selah. The problem was never that he failed to feel. He felt deeply. He felt about himself.

And it did not stay on the ship. Around 1807 a Bible was printed for enslaved people in the West Indies with Exodus largely removed. No deliverance. No let my people go. What stayed was servants, obey your masters. Catechisms taught enslaved people that obeying the master was obeying God. In 1844 and 1845 the Methodists and Baptists split, and the southern side argued Scripture endorsed the institution. Genesis 9 was bent into the curse of Ham, marking a people as divinely assigned to servitude. In every case the category was decided first and the text was fitted to it afterward.

And watch how the story gets told from the platform. The atrocity, then the guilt, then the hymn. Cause, effect, resolution. It moves an audience because the arrow points somewhere clean.

The arrow points the wrong way. The atrocities were not behind him when he wrote. They were his trade. They continued after the storm, and his money stayed in the business long after the pen was down. The hymn was not written out of the wreckage of his past. It was written by a man who had not yet finished.

That is not a rounding error. It is a reversal. An ongoing crime is converted into a completed one so the song can serve as its resolution, and the congregation gets to feel the weight and feel it lifted, in four minutes, on behalf of someone who was still doing it.

Wake up. That is what gatekeeping is. Not a locked door. A rearranged timeline, handed to you already resolved, so you never ask what is still happening.

That is a gatekeeper. Not someone who forbids you the Bible. Someone who stands in front of it and tells you what it is permitted to mean. Newton could read Isaiah 58 and hear nothing about the hold, because the grid arrived before the text did. Sincerity was never missing. He had it. So did the men who bought his cargo. I said I hold no card. That is not neutrality. It is the refusal to let any man stand between me and the text. Every reader has a gatekeeper, and some of them sit unnamed in your own tradition. The question is whether you have ever tested yours against the text it claims to explain.

And now the gatekeeper has been automated. Ask a machine about this hymn today and it will hand you the resolved version by default. Not from a pulpit. Not with an altar call. Just a tidy summary that says he was looking back in horror at the man he used to be, sourced from video clips and ministry blogs, with the chronology quietly inverted and nothing marking it as a claim. It arrives as information rather than persuasion, which is what makes it more dangerous than any sermon. A sermon announces that it wants something from you. The summary does not.

One more thing. Some pulpits tell of a girl thrown overboard on one of Newton’s ships, and preachers use her death as the hinge of his repentance. I cannot document that story, so I will not use it. But watch what the telling does. It reaches for a dead child to make a white man’s interior life vivid. That is the hymn’s own logic, repeated from the pulpit.

The Bereans did two things. They received the word eagerly, and they examined the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Most congregations have mastered the first half.

Newton was not a monster in a pew. He was a devout man with an unexamined framework, and that was enough. That is the warning. Not that wicked men sing. That sincere ones do, loudly, for decades, while the yoke stays on the neck.

You will sing again. Maybe this Sunday. And you cannot sing it the same way now, because you know what the mouth that wrote it was doing while it wrote. So ask the harder question, the one this piece was always about. What else are you singing that you have never examined? What did your teachers hand you already interpreted, already settled, already safe?

Newton did not lack devotion. He lacked one habit. He never made the system that comforted him answer to the text.

Do not inherit your worship. Examine it. Then sing.

Shalom v’shalvah, your brother in the Way,

Sergio

Subscribe now

Share

Good afternoon, friends.

This post is a little bit different. It’s not an essay; this is a letter. I felt responsible to preface what I found with a very clear explanation, and I think you should hear it here first before you dig into the longer piece on the Berean Table

My Substack family is the audience I have been talking to for a long time now. Some of you have even been reading my essays long before the Berean Table had a name, and you know the position I hold simply because I am very adamant about getting it out.

The veil was torn from the top down. The cup went to friends in their hands; mediation was abolished, and there is no man who stands between you and Abba anymore.

You’ve heard me say it a million times: any system that says otherwise is selling something God already gave away for free and eliminated with the new covenant.

None of that has changed in my mind, so hold on to it before you dig into the deeper essay. I’m not taking it back. I’m clarifying.

I feel obligated to tell you how this started because, early on, that’s where the real problem crept in.

Years ago, when I started waking up to the system we call Christianity and looking at it for what it was, there was one word that grabbed a hold of me and would not let go. That word is **mediator**. Everywhere I looked in the institutional system, I saw men standing between the flock and God. I also saw a class system standing between them and the flock.

That is intervention into what the new covenant simply says is God— that covenant that Yeshua cut in his own blood.

Maybe it’s my years in the marketing world, but the in-betweenness of it all was so vibrant to me that I felt like I had a mission to get it out to the world. Unfortunately, that word **mediator** did not grasp

I actually began to scream it with blog posts, conversation, and social media.

I did everything I could to blow the shofar as loud as possible, showing what mediation looked like

And this is the part many of you don’t see; it doesn’t change a whole lot in the Christian mind. I don’t know if it’s self-justification or simply avoidance, but either way, it’s not resonating like it should.

Yes, there are people who do agree, and I appreciate that wholeheartedly.

But then there’s a lot of people who simply nod. And that was the strangest part to me. It took me a long, long time to understand how strange that was. Nobody really argues with me—perhaps maybe just the Calvinist.

But that being said, a Protestant hears no mediation and agrees before the sentence is actually finished. He will quote one mediator between God and men—1 Timothy 2:5—right back at me, and he’ll mean it, because this whole tradition was founded on saying exactly that against Rome.

I was also watching men agree with me and walk out completely unchanged, and for the life of me, I did not understand it. I assumed the problem was always my delivery, so I sharpened it, I rewrote it, I refined it. I assumed the problem was the audience, and it was not.

The actual problem was that, even though I had the right diagnosis aimed at the wrong church, I was almost correct.

And “almost correct” is the most dangerous kind of wrong because everything else in you says, “keep going.”

This is what broke it open for me, and it was going back to the text with an even harder question: Who was Yeshua actually hardest on? Not who did he correct or who got the woes.

When I found the real answer, it unwound my brain and unraveled my thinking because it wasn’t the priests. The mediating class of his time were the men who actually stood in between with blood, altar, and incense, and walked away with warnings.

Those woes are the hottest words he ever spoke, and they fell on somebody else. The charge he brought against them was not the charge that I had been bringing to the table all this time.

That being said, I’m not going to give you the explanation here, not because I’m withholding it from you. People know what I think of withholding.

However, it’s because this case deserves to be seen in its entirety, and I built that on the Berean table. I will unpack the word he used, the men he aimed at, what Rome did with fire and Latin, as well as what the Reformation kept when he gave the cup back.

There’s a test with five real marks you can run on your own congregation tomorrow morning without saying a word to anybody else.

And the door that’s been standing open the entire time will become evidently clear.

It is the most personal correction I’ve ever published because teaching being corrected is mine to own.

That is what being a Berean is all about.

I Have Been Screaming the Wrong Word →

One last thing before you actually read the article, and this is specifically for those who trusted me enough to keep listening.

The message you learned from me was not wrong, and it wasn’t an error. It was simply unsharpened, and there’s a very distinct difference. The difference matters for how you carry what I proclaim.

As I’ve said before, never take my word for things—neither the old teaching nor this. Take it the way Bereans took Sha'ul (Paul). Always go home, open the text, and critically argue against what I’m saying.

If this table or my efforts have ever taught you anything, let it be to refine your Berean heart. The day you stop checking me is the day I become the thing that this piece is all about.

I encourage you to read the article slowly, bring some questions, and start a discussion.

And if you’ve ever felt that same draft in the house, the in-betweenness you could not name, this piece is me handing you the word that I could not find.

Your brother in the Way,

Sergio

*By the way, this was handwritten, and the scanner said it wasn’t. So, whatever about the scanner.

Subscribe now

You ever wonder how you would launch a worldwide movement? Find the people, credential them, equip them, give them an Amex, give them a foundation, a position, a working budget, something that proves they belong and they know what they’re doing? That is how we would build something that changes an industry, and guess what, it’s the exact opposite of what Jesus did.

He sent the twelve disciples out in pairs and told them to take nothing with them: no bread, no bag, no money, no bartering tools, no change of clothing (Mark 6:7-9). He then sent 72 more out the same exact way and added a line that should make all of us stop and think: “No purse, no bag, no sandals, and greet no one on the road” (Luke 10:4). He wasn’t equipping them; He was stripping them down.

These were not “rabbis” or “pastors”. Acts calls them agrammatoi kai idiōtai. These are not seminary graduates; they’re not ministry professionals. They are men with no academic credentials behind them (Acts 4:13). The world of religious knowledge ran on accumulation. You gathered learning, built standing, collected students, operated from a fixed place, and the more you had, the better and more equipped you were considered.

Yeshua (Jesus) gave His men authority through confidence instead of seminary credentials, then sent them off bare. Nothing else. Everything the system said made you a powerful preacher, He told them to leave at home.

And the craziest thing of all: if a town would not receive them, He told them to shake the dust off their feet and keep on walking (Mark 6:11). He didn’t give them a campaign to win. He didn’t give them entertainment. He didn’t tell them to sing. There was no church to plant. There was nothing to stay and defend after they made their point.

Now take a hard look at what we’ve built. There are buildings we cannot sell, degrees in seminary, budgets we’re not allowed to question, and institutions that will defend them to the last member. We make permanence the point; Yeshua made mobility the target. This is not a small difference. It is the exact opposite of the command, and that’s what we call church.

And this is what should really make you sad and, honestly, deeply unsettle you. It’s not that it’s ill-intentioned; it’s simply human nature, and it has a name. I learned about this in a book I recently read called The Intelligence Trap, and reading it hit me like a brick: this is romantic logic. Choosing an attachment first, and then convincing your mind afterward to defend it.

We have this inherent craving for security, for position, and for something to belong to, and given enough time, we will do whatever we can to build it to fit our needs. That’s the instinct that feels like faithfulness. However, it’s the exact opposite of what Jesus asked, and it’s the exact opposite of how He taught truth.

Go back and read that again. We shouldn’t stay to defend what we’ve made comfortable, not because the message cannot be defended, but because a truth that needs a defense team has already been considered ill, and it has become protected property.

Romantic logic exists in all of us, to keep an attachment safe from reality itself. Yeshua sent His men out with nothing so that nothing would stand between the truth and reality’s own verdict on it. Received or rejected on the spot, there was no comfort filed either way.

I go deeper into that mechanism, the heart hiring the mind to defend what it has already decided to keep, in The Heart Hires the Mind. If this unsettled you, that piece will show you exactly how the machine runs, and how much of what we call Western Christianity is built by it.

Selah.

What have you accumulated in His name that He told you to travel without? If He sent your favorite ministry out two by two with nothing tomorrow, would it survive the trip?

Read a deeper dive here.

Shalom v’shalvah, your brother in the Way,

Sergio

Subscribe now

I seriously did not want to send this brief essay to you.

Not because I’m not confident in what it has to say, but because I know how it sounds coming from me, and I know some of you who will actually read it. I have family in the same pews you go to. There are people I love, people more devout than I am on plenty of days. So before anything else, I want you to hear the words in the title of this essay. This is definitely a plea. This isn’t a takedown; this isn’t a gotcha; this is a sincere plea.

Allow me to reiterate who I am, because you should know there’s a real cost to this for me. I am a Jew who does not believe in any artificial religion. Any of them. My people built one too. The one we built has a fence around tradition, a fence around the law, and definitely a fence around the text, and I don’t follow any of that. The written Torah, the prophets, and the Messiah they promised: that is the entire foundation of my faith.

This week, as I was prepping for my group Bible study and thinking about how I was going to do Shabbat, it impacted me more strongly than usual. It’s the one thing I feel Christians need to really stop and sit with.

I can trace and justify every aspect of my faith, all the way from the candles on Shabbat back through the book to the Garden, where no man’s hand ever enters the chain of custody:

• Avraham (Abraham) to Sinai

• Sinai to the Prophets

• the Prophets to the Brit Chadashah, the New Covenant promised in Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) 31

• our Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus), who lifted a cup and said it had arrived

Every link is written on a page. Not a committee, not an emperor. Nobody voted.

So here’s the honest plea, Christian: can you do that with yours?

Breathe for a second. This is meant as a real question, not a trap. Please sit down tonight and actually trace your faith backward, from the pew you’re sitting in and the pastor you’re under, and I want you actually to watch where the chain runs. Before you know it, it passes through a room in 325 CE, at an emperor’s palace, with a council that had zero members of the earliest church sitting there. They reassigned the timing of a festival God fixed by name, and they explained themselves in a letter that still survives, a letter that wanted nothing in common with the very people who founded the faith. And that letter still dictates your calendar to this day. From there forward, the story you inherited was not simply laid out. It was 100% managed by a government institution, very much on purpose and very much intentionally. I just published the whole account with primary sources so you don’t have to take my word for anything. There Were No Jews at Nicea!

And if you need a visual, I created a map. I built the timelines. The Ekklesia timeline follows the unbroken covenant line I referred to earlier. The 283 Years shows the faith before the Empire took it over. The Christianity Tree maps everything that grew out of what Rome did. One Roman edict. One council. And they are all sourced, all sitting there wide open for your examination.

This is what I really want to know, and this is why I’m sincerely asking. Why do you not want to look? Why does an invitation to think about where the faith you stand on every Sunday morning, the faith you lift your hands to, was crafted feel like an attack? Because crafted is the right word here. There are only two possible craftsmen: the hands of men, or the hand of God.

And this is where things get tough, because I’m not pretending. If I can trace my lineage through the entire book without one aspect of man’s hand on the chain, and you cannot, which one of us is truly standing on the concrete foundation of our faith?

Please, please hear me. I’m not questioning your faith, and I’m not saying it isn’t real, and it’s not on trial in anything I write. Ever. The question I’m asking is whether the story you were handed about how the faith reached you is true or manufactured. Those are two very different things, and at the end of the day, the only one that really matters is the God you believe in. A true story does not fear tracing. It welcomes it. A manufactured one depends on you never trying to trace it, never digging!

So here’s my challenge: try it! Take the essay, review the timelines, grab your Bible, and ask yourself:

• Who taught you what you believe?

• Where did it come from?

• Who taught them?

• Where does the trail actually end?

If it runs clean to the Garden without man’s interference, you have lost nothing but an evening of your time. If it runs through a palace in 325, you have found something you needed to find. Yes, you will have to come to terms with it eventually. But the root is still very much there. It’s still very much alive, and it is still carrying everything grafted into it. Human hands have never managed that part of the story.

Read it like a Berean. Suspicious, and searching.

There Were No Jews at Nicea → https://www.bereantable.com/posts/there-were-no-jews-at-nicea The timelines → https://www.bereantable.com/timelines

Always be Berean.

Sergio

Subscribe now

Two sentences. Both said by men who love Yeshua (Jesus), from pulpits and at kitchen tables. They sound so nearly alike that most people have never noticed there are two of them.

He lived a perfect life as a substitute for your sin, and gave His life so you would not have to live under the Torah.

He lived a perfect life to show us what whole looks like when no man has bent it, out of a heart that wanted to give God obedience on His own terms.

Same man. Same thirty-three years. Read them for grammar and the difference stops being subtle. Every clause in the first one lands on the reader and stops there. In the second, the reader does not appear at all.

I am not doing a word trick. That is the whole argument, sitting out in the open where anyone can check it.

I have had this conversation enough times to know the order the objections come in. So let me put them in front of you myself, in that order, and you can tell me whether I have been fair to them.

“That is works righteousness with extra steps.”

It is the first thing said, always. And it comes fastest from the people who were taught to say it fastest.

But notice what the objection assumes. It assumes there are exactly two options on the table: His record credited to me, or my record earning something. Substitute or salary. Accept that those are the only two and the conversation is over before it starts. Nobody wants the salary.

Nothing I am saying is on either of those. I am asking a third question, and it is a question about the life, not the death. What were the thirty-three years for?

Christianity has an answer, and it is a good one on its own terms: He was accumulating a righteousness that transfers. The whole ledger balances because His column is full and mine is empty and the entry moves across.

I want to test that answer against the Hebrew word it is built on, and see if the word can carry it.

“Perfect means sinless. You are playing games with the vocabulary.”

Fair. So look at the word.

The word is tamim. Its root, ת-מ-ם, carries complete, entire, finished, all of it there. HaShem tells Avraham (Abraham) to walk before Him and be tamim, Bereshit, Genesis 17:1. Moshe (Moses) tells Israel tamim you shall be, Devarim, Deuteronomy 18:13.

And the same word describes a lamb at the altar, Shemot, Exodus 12:5.

Stop on the lamb, because the lamb settles it.

That animal has no moral record. It never obeyed anything. It was never tempted, never chose, never resisted. It is not tamim because it kept commandments. It is tamim because nothing has been broken off it. Entire. Undamaged. All of a piece.

So when the word lands on a man, it is not describing a transcript with no infractions. It is describing a man who is not divided.

This is where it stops being a word study. A spotless record is a thing you can hand to someone else. Wholeness is not. Wholeness has no transfer mechanism, because it was never a quantity in the first place. It is a condition of a man. You cannot be handed someone else’s wholeness any more than you can be handed someone else’s health and stop being sick.

If tamim is the word, then the transfer is not in the word.

One more thing about the word, and this is the part that got me. When the Septuagint carries tamim into Greek it reaches for teleios, brought through to its end, and it uses that very word of the Passover lamb. Latin took it up as perfectus, thoroughly made. Every language in the chain kept the sense of whole.

English is where it turned into a score.

Which means a doctrine about transferable compliance is standing on a word that drifted, and the drift happened downstream of every language the text was actually written and first read in.

“So a thousand years of the church is wrong and you are right.”

This is the one that is supposed to end the conversation, and I understand why it gets reached for. It is not an argument, though. It is a headcount.

Let me answer it with a date instead.

In the 1640s, at Westminster, serious and orthodox and confessional men sat in a room and argued about whether the Messiah’s law-keeping is credited to the believer. The older English article had said His whole obedience was reckoned to you, and that one word is what the fight was over. Thomas Gataker objected. So did Richard Vines. So did William Twisse, and Twisse was the prolocutor. He was chairing the Assembly.

The vote went against them, and it was not close.

But watch what the room did next. This part never gets mentioned from a pulpit. They took the word out. The confession those men produced does not say whole obedience. It says the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, phrased that way on purpose, because it can be read either way and the dissenters could sign it without lying.

And a generation earlier the same fight had already happened. Johannes Piscator, professor at Herborn, put it in print that only the passive obedience is imputed. Three French Reformed synods rebuked him for it. The National Synod of Gap wrote to him in 1603 and asked him not to trouble the churches with the opinion.

They did not answer him from Scripture and settle it. They asked him to be quiet.

Nobody writes that letter about a doctrine no one disputes.

I am not calling those men wicked, and I want that heard. Anselm was answering a question his century put to him. Calvin was not a con man. The divines at Westminster were careful people doing careful work with the tools their century handed them, and the tools were the problem, not the men.

But a thing the apostles handed down is not a thing you have to take a vote on. And it is certainly not a thing you have to word loosely so the room stays together.

You are allowed to know that. You were probably never told.

And if you are the one who told it to other people, hear me before you go one line further. You were handed this. So was the man who handed it to you, and the man who handed it to him. Teaching what you were given, in good conscience, with a Bible open in front of you, is not the same thing as inventing it. Nobody is asking you to look back at your own pulpit and call yourself a liar.

“This is Hebrew Roots. You want to put us back under the law.”

Now the part where I stop being useful to the half of you who have been enjoying this.

Let that objection stand unanswered and I have handed you a weapon and called it a gospel.

There is a man who keeps every commandment in front of him, and he keeps them beautifully, and his reason is that he intends to be beyond reproach. Nobody will ever have anything on him. He has noticed, without ever saying it out loud, that the crowds down the road are not doing what he is doing, and the noticing is not unpleasant to him.

Look at his sentence.

It ends at his own feet.

He is running the identical engine as the man holding the substitute. His obedience terminates in his own security exactly the way the transfer did. He has escaped nothing. He took the same self-protecting instinct and dressed it in tzitzit [the fringes on the garment], and it is harder to see in him precisely because the outside is so much better.

Dawid (David) did not say I perform Your will. He said I delight to do Your will, Tehillim, Psalm 40:8, and in the same breath he says why he can: the Torah is already inside him, in the me’ai, the inward parts, the gut.

The delight is not decoration on top of the obedience. The delight is the evidence that the instruction actually got inside, rather than being worn on the outside where the neighbors can grade it.

So the question was never which column you are standing in. You can be in the right column and be no different at all.

Where does your sentence end. That is the only question I have.

“Are you telling me His death did not pay for my sin?”

No. And I want to take this one slowly. The fear underneath it is not silly and it is not small.

It goes like this. I am guilty, the guilt is real and not imagined, and I do not have anything in my hands that repairs it.

That is a true perception. A man who says it about himself is not being morbid. He is being accurate. Any gospel that waves that off, that tells him to stop being so hard on himself and get on with the program, is not worth the hour he would spend on it.

So take the whole thing. Grace is not earned. Nobody climbs to God by effort. No amount of careful living generates the thing a man needs. That death was not decoration and it was not a demonstration; it accomplished something a man could not accomplish, and I am not spending one sentence taking that away from you.

All of that, the second sentence holds too. Every word of it. None of it is in dispute.

What is in dispute is one thing. What was the life for.

Not whether He saved you. Whether the thirty-three years before the cross were a record being accumulated on your behalf, or a man being shown to you.

There are not two gospels

I have been saying two gospels since the first line of this, and I need to take it back before we finish. It is not true, and I am not going to leave a false thing standing because it made the argument easier to organize.

There are not two gospels. There is one.

Sha’ul (Paul) says it to the Galatians with an impatience you can feel through the page. He tells them they are turning to a different gospel, and then interrupts his own sentence to correct it: which is not another (Galatians 1:6-7). He reaches for the word, hears how it sounds coming out, and takes it back mid-breath. There is no second gospel to turn to. There is the gospel, and there is something else wearing its coat.

Which means the question this whole thing has been circling was never which of the two you are holding. That question assumes a shelf with two items on it and you get to choose.

There is no shelf.

The question is whether the thing in your hands is the gospel at all. And that has to cut at me before it cuts at you, or I have no business writing it. A man handed a receipt does not have a smaller portion of the gospel. He has a receipt. A man keeping every commandment so nobody can accuse him does not have a stricter version of it. He has a position he is defending.

Neither of those is the thing. I have been both of those men.

Hear what is underneath that. It is not a threat. If there is only one, then it was never lost, and it is not in dispute, and nobody has to work out which camp is holding it before he is allowed to come.

Come and walk. Be made whole. Bring your Father something real.

Read that one more time and notice where it goes.

It has never once ended at you.

The full piece runs the whole argument, with the covenant material I only gestured at here: what Moshe refused at Devarim, Deuteronomy 30, the psalm the letter to the Hebrews puts in the Messiah’s mouth, and what a refiner is actually doing when he sits down beside the fire.

Read it on The Berean Table →

And then do what it asks. Do not trust me. Go find the verse that says His life was lived instead of yours.

May the shalom of our Abba guard your study and your wrestling, shalom v’shalvah. Your brother in the Way, Sergio

Subscribe now

Fulfill.

Last night I spent a ton of time trying to explain that one word to a man who couldn’t understand what I was trying to say. Ole Mr. Beane just wanted a simple yes or a simple no. Did Jesus fulfill the law? I gave him the answer, and he didn’t want to hear it. He didn’t want that answer. He wanted to spring a trap on me. So I said it again, a little bit cleaner this time. He didn’t hear any of it. Somewhere in there I had to stop. And my mistake was the one sitting underneath this whole dialogue: I kept believing that if I explained it clearly enough, he would finally understand what I was trying to say. Clarity was never what stood in the way between James and me. He was not asking to learn; he was asking to prove a point.

So allow me to write it down for the ones that are curious and who do want to know the truth.

Fulfill is the entire hinge. The modern Church told you that Yeshua (Jesus) fulfilled the Torah (instruction, teaching, law), and the moment you heard fulfill, you heard finished. Okay, back up a step. We heard completed and done. What was given to us was a receipt stamped paid and filed away. If he fulfilled the law, as the reasoning goes, then you are free of it, and the Torah becomes a museum piece, something that we look at, admire, and then forget about when we walk out of the old building.

I understand, but we can’t do that. Stop. Take a moment and read the following sentence that comes out of his mouth:

Until heaven and earth pass away, not one yod (י), not one stroke of a letter, not the most minuscule part of the Torah, of the Hebrew alphabet, will pass from the Torah until all is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18)

Keep in mind here, the yod is the smallest letter that Hebrew has to offer, a mark the size of an apostrophe. The stroke, or the tittle, is the tiny hook that separates one letter from the next in Hebrew. He reaches for those two smallest items on the page and says not even these tiny little marks are exempt from God’s instruction. That is not a man retiring anything. That is a man guarding it down to the very ink it’s written in.

So, that being said, he doesn’t mean what you were told he meant. In verse 17, he also says he did not come to abolish. Okay, there’s a simple statement that most Christians ignore right there. However, in verse 18 he says that not a pen stroke falls. What do we do with that? If fulfill meant finish, he would be abolishing everything in one beat that he just swore he wouldn’t touch. Slow down, think about that for a second.

Here is what that passage actually carries. In the mouth of rabbis, to fulfill the Torah and to abolish it were a matched pair, and they never meant what English readers assume. To abolish it, l’vatel, was to interpret a commandment so poorly that people would stop keeping it. To fulfill it, l’qayem, was to interpret it so rightly that it established a foundation and it was lived out properly. The Mishnah still keeps that pair, that very pair: whoever upholds the Torah in poverty will uphold it in wealth, and whoever nullifies it in wealth will nullify it in poverty. That is in Pirkei Avot 4:9. Fulfill was never about ending the commandments; it was about getting them right.

Now put it back in his own language. What was he talking about, in what context? It was all about getting that right.

And one more thing. To fulfill meant to live out perfectly and demonstrate. So think about it: if you were given a job and the employer said, “I expect you to fulfill your obligation,” that doesn’t mean you end it; it means you do it correctly.

When he said this in his own language: “I truly did not come to nullify the Torah by teaching it falsely; I came to establish it by teaching it truly.” That makes everything fit together. This is a rabbi staking his authority on doing what’s correct, reading Moses correctly. This is not a savior canceling anything, and everything that follows it proves my point. You’ve heard it said, but I say to you, driving each command deeper into your heart, never leaving the room.

One word, two readings. One of them makes the verses contradict, and the other one makes them say the same thing.

So the man in my conversation last night was handed the losing definition and was told that that’s the gospel. And so were you, probably. The difference is not how clearly someone explains it to you. The true difference is whether or not you’re willing to read it again in the right context and try to figure out what it’s actually saying.

That is the distinction. That is what being a Berean ever was. It is what being a Berean means. And it is something that the majority of the church fails to look at deeply.

Shalom, shalom.

Subscribe now

Share

ps: I’ve rebranded the main site to be called the Berean table. However, I did create a personal blog site for me to share all my thoughts and not just spiritual.

https://sergiodesoto.me

I dare you to open Psalm 119. Don’t just skim it. I want you to read it slowly, the way you would read an intimate letter from someone you love deeply and know time was running out.

This is the longest chapter in your Bible, 176 passionate verses. It says the same thing over and over again, all the way from the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet to the very last: “I love your Torah. I ache for it deeply. Teach me to keep it, Lord. Do not permit me to wander away from it. I incline my heart toward it. My soul is consumed with a deep hunger for it.”

Now hold that against what you have been told. We all know the institutional church handed us a Torah that was labeled a complete burden, a legalism yoke nobody could even bear, or ever bear, a dead letter God could not wait to be rid of. It was retired at the cross, replaced by a simple grace that gets us out of jail free.

However, think about this for a moment. If that is true, when you read the Psalm again slowly, take a minute and tell me what you’re looking at, because a man, a passionate man, sat down and poured out all those verses of love for the very thing we’ve been sold as a curse. He called it sweeter than honey, more precious than gold. This was his meditation throughout the day.

There are only two ways to read this, really:

1. David was a complete lunatic, writing love songs about his chains in his prison and calling his prison something beautiful.

2. The thing he loved was never what we were sold it was, and I say “sold” loosely because you can’t have it both ways.

We can’t have it both ways. We can’t have it by what’s called a burden and got abolished, and a Bible where most of its devoted, passionate writers spent its longest chapter adoring it and never feel the two grinding against each other, at odds. One of those readings is absolutely wrong, and it’s worth knowing which one.

I encourage you to do the honest thing, to do the Berean thing, and read the psalm slowly yourself. This time, watch what the verbs do closely. Pay attention. He does not say, “I keep it.” He says, “Teach it to me, incline me, keep me from wandering away from your instruction, give me the understanding, revive me.” Those are not words coming out of a man reporting his obedience to the world. Those are very sincere words of a man begging for a strong connection with God. He absolutely loved God’s instruction with everything he had, and he still could not keep it from the inside. He had this role in front of him and the agony inside himself at a very deep level, and no power to close the gap between the two- that gap, the entire psalm.

That is the same gap you and I feel, if we’re honest, every time we love something in scripture but cannot seem to live it out. This is what I want you to sit with. It’s exactly what I want you to sit with. I don’t feel like David was a lunatic. He was the most honest man in the Tanakh about the one thing most of us hide from. He was craving what he could not satisfy on his own. It was not a dead end. It was simply a prayer, and he had an answer coming. He didn’t know it.

That answer runs straight through the New Testament: that people have been taught to leave the Torah behind. Jeremiah named it Yeshua, enacted it; Shaul lived inside of it. Yohanan said outright that the commandments we were given were not a burden. Every one of them is standing exactly where Psalm 119 put it, but don’t take my word for it. Be Berean.

I’ve laid this whole thing out: David’s cry, the covenant that answers it, the unbroken line all the way from Yeshua’s own mouth to the last letter of the Bible. This is a new piece on the Berean table. It is long. It’s the longest chapter of the Bible, so it deserves a very slow unpacking. If you’ve ever loved something in scripture that you could not keep from the inside, this is the journal entry built exactly for you. Read Psalm 119 first. Do it slowly, then come and read this and ask yourself honestly whether or not what you were handed agrees with the man singing passionately on the page, or does it make a lunatic out of him?

It’s up to you.

→ The Torah David Longed to Keep

Shalom v’shalvah,

Sergio

Subscribe now

Share