Wisdom in Torah

How misused: Cortes frequently argues that 'takes away the sin' does not mean atonement in the sense of 'removing' or 'forgiving' sin through sacrificial death, but rather 'bears' or 'carries' sin, implying a judicial role of bearing the consequence without necessarily providing a complete propitiatory sacrifice for all sin. This is explicitly stated in videos like [34], 'Does the Lamb Take Away Sin? John 1:29 Does NOT Mean What You Think'.

Scripture's answer: The Greek word αἴρων (airōn) in John 1:29 means 'taking away,' 'carrying off,' or 'removing.' While it can imply bearing (as in carrying a burden), in the context of Old Testament sacrificial language (e.g., Isaiah 53:4-12, Leviticus 16:21-22 for the scapegoat), when tied to 'sin,' it primarily signifies propitiatory removal and atonement. The Messianic interpretation, widely understood in early Christianity, is that Yeshua's sacrifice definitively removes the guilt and penalty of sin, not merely carries it as a burden or makes a legal declaration without propitiation.

How misused: Cortes systematically reinterprets Paul's discussions around 'the Law' to mean specific 'pagan' or 'Gentile' laws, or purely the 'Oral Law,' rather than the Mosaic Law itself, or the idea of justification by works of the Law. He often argues that Paul was not against the Torah but against Hellenistic Jewish legalism or Gentile cultural practices. This foundational misunderstanding underpins many videos, particularly those discussing 'the Law of Messiah' [177, 253] and 'Did Yeshua abolish the Law?' [221], as well as his 'Book of Galatians Series' [290].

Scripture's answer: Paul consistently contrasts 'works of the Law' (ἔργων νόμου) with 'faith in Christ' (πίστις Χριστοῦ) as the means of justification before God (Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 2:16, 3:10-14). While Paul's arguments have contextual nuances (e.g., addressing Jewish legalism, Gentile inclusion), he clearly states that salvation is 'not by works of the law, but by faith' (Gal 2:16), indicating a fundamental shift in the covenantal mechanism for righteousness and not merely a rejection of pagan laws or oral traditions. The 'Law of Christ' (Galatians 6:2) is an internal principle of love and obedience enabled by the Spirit, distinct from the Mosaic Law as a system for justification.

How misused: Cortes frequently misrepresents the author of Hebrews' argument regarding the temporary and typological nature of the Old Covenant sacrificial system. He implies that Hebrews is not negating the efficacy of the sacrifices but clarifying their 'purity' aspects or emphasizing their original ANE context [27, 179]. He may argue that the sacrifices 'for sin' were not for all sin but specific 'unwitting' sins, minimizing their atoning power in the Old Testament and, by extension, the definitive, complete atonement of Yeshua. This is evident in 'Hebrews 9 Explained' [27] and 'Were ALL Sacrifices REALLY For Sin?' [18].

Scripture's answer: Hebrews explicitly states that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins (Hebrews 10:4) and that the Old Covenant sacrifices were a shadow (10:1) pointing to the 'once for all' sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 10:10, 14). The point is not merely purification from ritual impurity, but the inability to fully cleanse the conscience and definitively atone for moral sin. Yeshua’s sacrifice is presented as superior and final, inaugurating a New Covenant that renders the Old obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).

How misused: Cortes (and those he interviews like Gane) often uses a narrow definition of 'sin' (חטאה/חטא, pesha/פשע, עון) to redefine what constitutes 'sin' in the New Testament. In videos like 'PESHA: Transgression, Sin, Rebellion, What's the Meaning?' [59] and 'What are the 3 Categories of Sin in the Bible?' [29], he may imply that only certain types of 'lawlessness' (i.e., breaking Torah) are truly sin in a salvific sense, often minimizing internal sin or sin against God's nature not explicitly codified in Torah. This is part of his broader argument that 'righteousness' is primarily Torah obedience.

Scripture's answer: The Greek word ἀνομία (anomia) in 1 John 3:4 refers to 'lawlessness,' absence of law, or violation of law. While it encompasses transgression of God's revealed Law (Torah), 'sin' in the broader biblical sense (both OT and NT) is disobedience to God's will and nature, a falling short of His glory (Romans 3:23). It includes acts against the explicit commands of Torah, but also internal attitudes, lack of faith (Romans 14:23), and failure to do good (James 4:17). Cortes's narrow definition serves to reinforce the idea that salvation is tied to 'Torah observance' rather than a holistic transformation of heart and life by the Spirit.

How misused: This verse is a cornerstone for Cortes's 'Torah-observant' theology. He interprets 'fulfill' (πληρῶσαι) primarily as 'to uphold,' 'to perform,' or 'to give the full meaning to,' implying that Yeshua ratified the perpetual validity and applicability of the Mosaic Law for all believers without any changes to its literal observance. This underpins his arguments about 'Did Yeshua abolish the Law after the Resurrection?' [221] and the ongoing relevance of feasts, dietary laws, etc.

Scripture's answer: While 'fulfill' includes upholding and exegeting the Law's true intent, in the context of Matthew and wider New Testament theology, it signifies Yeshua bringing the Law to its ultimate completion, purpose, and perfect embodiment. He fulfilled its prophetic types and shadows (e.g., as the true Lamb, Temple, Sabbath rest), perfectly obeyed its requirements, and inaugurated the New Covenant where its moral principles are internalized by the Spirit, while its ceremonial and civil aspects are either consummated in Him or rendered obsolete (Romans 10:4, Colossians 2:16-17). This does not mean the Law is 'abolished' in its moral essence, but its role as a covenant for justification and its ritual demands have been transformed and superseded.

How misused: Cortes often reinterprets the decrees of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:19-21) as an initial set of requirements for Gentiles before they can become fully 'Torah-observant.' He dismisses the idea that the council concluded Gentile converts were free from the Mosaic Law, framing the prohibitions (abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood) as minimum requirements leading to further Torah study, rather than the complete necessary requirements. This is evident in discussions of 'Paul's Teaching' or 'Hellenization' [106] and 'Acts 15 in the Context of Canaanite Fertility Ritual' [174].

Scripture's answer: The Jerusalem Council definitively ruled that Gentile believers were not required to be circumcised or to generally keep the Mosaic Law for salvation (Acts 15:5, 10, 19-20). The listed prohibitions were chosen to foster fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers by avoiding practices deeply offensive to Jewish sensitivities, particularly those associated with pagan worship and immorality. The statement 'For Moses has been preached in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath' (Acts 15:21) is often interpreted by scholars as indicating that Gentiles, after conversion, would learn more about God's ways through synagogue attendance, not that they were obligated to become full Torah observers according to all 613 mitzvot.

How misused: Cortes consistently elevates the physical Temple, its rituals, and its 'purity' system to an ongoing, fundamental requirement for understanding God and righteousness, even for New Covenant believers. He strongly suggests that the Temple's restoration and the re-establishment of its associated rituals are essential and foretold, almost as if Yeshua's work is incomplete without it. This is a recurring theme in many videos, e.g., 'What is Home vs House?' [194], 'Temple and Holiness' [139], 'The Temple helps us understand what purity is!' [178], 'Your purity in the Second Temple Period' [193].

Scripture's answer: While the Old Testament Temple and its rituals were ordained by God and are rich in symbolism, the New Testament clearly teaches that Yeshua is the ultimate Temple (John 2:19-21), and believers collectively form God's spiritual Temple (1 Corinthians 3:16, Ephesians 2:19-22). The High Priestly ministry of Christ has superseded the Levitical priesthood (Hebrews 7), and His 'once for all' sacrifice has rendered the physical sacrificial system obsolete for atonement (Hebrews 10:18). While the return of sacrifices in a future temple is debated eschatologically, interpreting them as currently or perpetually necessary for 'purity' or 'righteousness' for New Covenant believers undermines the completeness of Christ's work and the spiritual nature of New Covenant worship (John 4:23-24).

How misused: In 'Mark 7 and Purity - Mesa, AZ' [225], Cortes likely argues that Yeshua was not abolishing dietary laws or a distinction between clean/unclean foods, but rather critiquing the Pharisees' emphasis on oral traditions (hand-washing) over the true heart of Torah. He would assert that Yeshua was upholding the Mosaic dietary laws as eternally valid.

Scripture's answer: While Yeshua indeed challenged the Pharisees' traditions over God's commands (Mark 7:8-9), Mark's parenthetical explanation in 7:19 explicitly states, 'Thus he declared all foods clean' (καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα). This, coupled with Peter's vision in Acts 10 and Paul's teaching in Romans 14 and Colossians 2, strongly indicates that the distinction between clean and unclean foods (as ceremonial law) was abrogated in the New Covenant. Yeshua was not just correcting rabbinic tradition but initiating a deeper understanding of purity that transcends external ritual laws.