I apologize for the long delay. I greatly appreciate your kind and swift replies to my questions.
We have discussed many points where we share common beliefs and many points where our understandings differ. Originally, I planned to tackle every point of difference; however, I found it overwhelming. So, if you do not mind, I would like to address what I perceive as the most fundamental arguments of your case, and I would like to limit my response to a few central arguments as well. Below the following section, although not exhaustive by any means, I have included responses to several other points you have made. However, I think it could serve as a distraction, so I include them reservedly.
Answering The Fundamental Arguments
First, I would I like to focus on these compiled quotations, which I think articulate the "theory" (emphasis, mine):
email wrote:We have no need for animal sacrificies yeshua is the last Lamb once and for all. ... What do we do with the first covenant ? I am a Messianic Jew. Even with in our ranks people do different things. Yeshua is the fullfillment of everything and the New Covenant is a continuation of the Old. ... We follow Gods diet but animal sacrifices are no more. ... I wanted you to get acquainted with the 1st lesson of the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith which is found in Jer. 31:31 The 1st Covenant was given to the Jewish People and the 2nd or New Covenant(Testimentum Latin- testament-English) was also given ONLY to the Jews
It seems that your belief that the New Covenant was given exclusively to the Jews AND is a continuation of the Old is the root of our differences. When applied, we run into this practical point of difference:
email wrote:the first church met on the Sabbath in local Synagogues read all of Acts. I believe as they closed out the Sabbath with the Havdalla service and brought in the 1st of the week(Sunday)at about 7:00 pm Sat evening they layed by in store searched the Scriptures played and sang songs as thy always have.God did not have to retell us to play instruments He told us this in Tehillim we have good memories. ... Remember All Scripture is profitable for correction etc that the man of G-d will be perfect...What All Scripture were they refering to ???? The only Scripture they had the Hebrew Scripture Scrolls of Scripture the 1st Covenant. ... Any way God told us Jews all through the Bible to Worship Him with everything .He did not have to tell us again. ...
Is the New Covenant an extension
of the Old? If so, then it would seem reasonable that all things authorized in the Old, including instrumental music, would continue to be authorized in the New unless specifically forbidden. But, can we harmonize this "theory" with all of Scripture? In response, I would like to focus on one Bible verse:
Paul, an inspired apostle, wrote:Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? (Galatians 5:1-7)
I understand that you and your husband do not seek to be justified by keeping the law, much less perfectly, thereby avoiding its curse (Galatians 3:12-13
). That is good. :-) However, in answering the Jews who sought justification by the Old Law, Paul argued that if any man seeks to keep any
part of the law (for example, circumcision), then he must keep the whole law (see also, James 2:10; Galatians 3:10
)! (He also says that circumcision is nothing and not part of "obeying the truth"
. Do you believe that Jewish men should obey a command to be circumcised? If so, Paul says that is not "truth".) Other passages teach the same point, which is that nobody
a covenant. If one part is changed, then the whole thing is changed (Hebrews 7:12-19
)! There is no piece-meal, picking and choosing what to keep and what to discard (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32
). If somebody seeks to obey any part of the covenant, then they are responsible for the whole covenant (Galatians 5:3
). Nobody, even God, can change a covenant:
Paul wrote:Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. (Galatians 3:15-17)
God's covenants can only be broken or fulfilled. And, the Old Covenant has definitely been fulfilled:
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ wrote:For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4)
But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (Galatians 3:23-25)
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another-- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." (Romans 7:1-7)
The main point of the Old Covenant and its Law was to bring us to Christ. Christ has fulfilled it - both in fulfilling its prophecies and perfectly obeying its commands (Luke 24:25-27; Romans 8:3-4
). So, how is anyone justified in including parts of the Old Covenant with the New? The Old Law has been fulfilled. And, the Old Law cannot be augmented or modified. By divine law, no one can extend the Old into the New. Therefore, we cannot use the Old Covenant to justify instrumental music, unless we are willing to grant that Jesus failed, and
unless we are willing to authorize incense, temple worship, animal sacrifices, special priests, polygamy, physical violence, and so forth.
Dear friend, I have asked you these questions in a previous correspondence. You need to answer these for anyone to have confidence in your arguments. By now you surely know that I will not be satisfied with mere assertions or an interesting story. You will need clear, unambiguous arguments from Scripture to convince me, and so far I have not seen it, nor have you answered the reasoning that underpins the above arguments. I am not trying to be hurtful. I am just trying to be clear on where I think we are and what we must do to come to unity in God's Word, which is what I believe we both seek. You need to answer the above verses.
The above summary represents my primary concern. By my understanding, those should be answered first. I hesitate to include next the following replies, because I fear they will distract or prove overwhelming. I am including them primarily for both of our benefits as reference, but also for completeness and integrity's sake. You have made several arguments, some referencing Scripture, so I wanted to answer those. Please do not feel like you must answer all of these, as they are answers themselves. I spent several nights over several weeks compiling these, so I would not expect an immediate response. However, I would welcome whatever questions, replies, or comments are generated by studying these as you have time after your first response.
email wrote:Musical instruments were commanded in the Tanach and the Jews who started the Church continued to play and Sing. ... They were Jews and years later at Acts 10 Goyim were saved Gentiles. They did as they always did they played their Mid-East instruments and sang. ... The First Church of Christ or Synaogoge of Messiah Yeshua (Jesus is an English name)Joshua would be His true English Name Jesus came from the Greek word Iesus Used Musical instruments. ... If you have never been you don't know what you are missing.The Davidic dance is beautiful. No dead Church here. You will truly have an experience of what Church was like 2000 years ago in the first( Assembly)Synagogue (Church)in Jerusalem Israel. ...
", I understand you mean what I would call, the Old Testament or Covenant. But, how do you know that the early Christians sang and
played instruments? What verse says this? If left unsubstantiated, the above statement is just an assertion and assumption.
email wrote:Your verse that all Churches of Christ use is Eph 5:18-20. Remember Ephesiana was written 61 years after the church was started. What did the congregation do for 30 some years ??? ... The verse that Stone and Campbell came up with was written some 60 years after the Church was established Messianic Jews that started the Church were playing and singing and we are doing today as the 1st Church of Christ did which was all Jewish until Acts 10 then Gentiles were able to be saved and be added to the Lords Church .
You are presuming that Ephesians 5:18-20
was the first occurrence of instruction on the matter. Remember, well before the recording of the New Testament, spiritual gifts (tongues and prophesy) served to instruct the saints (I John 2:20-27; I Corinthians 12:1-11, 28; 14:1-40; Acts 8:12-20
), not to mention the oral teaching of the apostles and prophets (Acts 2:42; 15:22-32
). Their inspired recording only preserved what had been universally, orally proclaimed and miraculously confirmed in the years prior (Colossians 4:16; I Corinthians 4:17; 7:17; 16:1; I Thessalonians 5:27; II Thessalonians 2:15; Hebrews 2:3-4; Mark 16:20
). The later date for the writing of Ephesians no more invalidates the instruction on music than it does on baptism, Christ's supremacy, or any other doctrinal matter discussed in Ephesians. Your suggestion that the Ephesian epistle could in any way change the New Covenant as previously delivered is unnecessary, unsupported, and frightening. ... What Bible verse shows that they worshiped with mechanical instruments between Acts 2
and Ephesians 5
email wrote:The C of C because of B.Stone and A.Campbell has went the way of Alexander and Allorgorize when it sutes them as in revelation The Picture of the New Jerusalem the new city we will live is an actual place will have Trumpets Harps and the Menorah frut on trees.
I interpret John's Revelation
as figurative and symbolic, because that is how John told us to interpret it:
John, an inspired apostle, wrote:The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near. (Revelation 1:1-3)
I interpret John's Revelation
as directly applicable to his near time, because that is how John was told to interpret it:
John wrote:Then he said to me, "These words are faithful and true." And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place. Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." ... And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. ... And behold, I am coming quickly ... He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:6-21)
More here: http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... revelation
email wrote:But please consider I am messiah Jewish I do not stop being Jewish because I have accepted my Jewish Messiah Rabbi Yeshua John 1:40
I am not asking you stop being Jewish or to give up your Jewish traditions
. Please feel free to continue in them (Romans 14:1-23; Acts 21:17-26; I Corinthians 9:19-23
). However, if any of the "commands" under the Tanach, which you keep as traditions, come in conflict with the New Law, then we must realize that the Tanach's traditions are no longer binding and prefer the New over the Old:
Paul wrote:Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (I Corinthians 7:19)
The Tanach bound circumcision, but now circumcision is not part of the "commandments of God"
; therefore, the Tanach is no longer the "commandments of God"
, unless we are willing to pick and choose (Deuteronomy 4:2
email wrote:now i understand your members of the C of C who most I have talked to believe God is finished with the Jews and This Denomination teaches Replacement Theology which is false read Romans 11:1
I do not use the term "Replacement Theology", and I am not sure what you mean by it. However, I do believe that the Old Law of Moses is no longer authoritative or binding as law.
I do not believe that God has entirely "cast off"
the Jews per your reference. In fact, I understand that Jews enjoy this favor:
Paul wrote:What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:1-2)
I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. (Romans 9:1-5)
That is a tremendous heritage that Gentiles can only read about. However, your version of "casting off"
may not be the same as Paul's. Was Paul speaking of salvation or covenants? Individuals or nations? I understand that Paul was saying that God has not completely and utterly rejected physical Israel (Romans 10:16-20
). They could be saved like everybody else, despite their disobedience (Romans 10:21
). In fact, Paul was living proof that God had not forgotten or excluded physical Israelites from salvation, since he was one (Romans 11:1
)! God could redeem a remnant of physical Israel according to the gracious terms of the New Covenant without necessarily invoking, requiring, or preserving any remnant of their Old Covenant and Law. I believe you have over-stretched and over-applied the verse by not realizing the full severity of the rejection denied by Paul in the term, "cast off"
. (Compare to same Greek word, apotheomai
, in: Acts 7:27, 39; 13:46; I Timothy 1:19; Jeremiah 2:36-37; 4:30; 6:19; Psalm 93:14; 94:14
Also, Zechariah prophesied that the physical, Jewish nation would be destroyed in a way, such that they would lose any special status before the Lord (Zechariah 11:1-17
). Although their legacy, witness, and history would be preserved, they would lose their right to the land through their disobedience, culminated in the rejection of Christ and His saints.
email wrote:C of C s do not have Choirs. But wait a minute some now do have choirs and some are now using the piano and other instruments,,,Yes times seem to be changing even in the C of C.Florida college and Harding college are changing,,the young people are leaving the Church at alarming rate.A C of C preacher told me that. "WE have lost the youth" Many members now are over sixty Hmmmmmmmmmmm ! ... I am aware of the woe full numbers that have dropped from the Churches of Christ as well as many of the Young people have left.The attendance of Florida,Harding as well as other C of C Colleges have dropped way done. I am not surprised. ... If you have never been you don't know what you are missing.The Davidic dance is beautiful. No dead Church here.
This is an emotional and prejudicial argument. I am disappointed to see you stoop to this level. I could just as easily argue, "Our singing is more spiritual, because we are focused on the melody of the soul, not a lifeless machination." Would that prove anything? I could point out the beautiful singing and the swelling attendance, where I worship. In fact, we are discussing plans to increase our auditorium size. Does that make me right? Hopefully, you are not drawn to instrumental music and dance by their beautiful appeal. (Do not forget how Eve was deceived, Genesis 3:6
.) Please do not use "human wisdom"
in an effort to persuade (I Corinthians 2:1-5
email wrote:Most of the Members of the C of C cannot even answer this.I asked one member of the Cof C Do you believe that Yeshua is both King and Priest They answered yes. I posed an answer as would the Hasadim Jews would answer. Yes Yeshua can be a King because He is in the line of David BUT he cannot be a priest because He is from the tribe of Judah. Only a man from the tribe of Lievi can be a priest. I have asked hundreds of members of all faiths and many many members from the C of C. No one has answered me.I am sure you know. The answer is found in the book of Tehellim-Psalms .Rabbi Yeshua the Messiah was made Priest after the order of Melchizedek !
Again, most Christians I know would have no problem with this. This is another prejudicial statement. But, more to the point, if Jesus was ordained according to an order outside the Law of Moses, then why would you try to serve Him according to the Law that He overshadowed, eclipsed, and superseded (Hebrews 7:1-19
)? The Old Law was built on top of the priesthood (Hebrews 7:11
). If the priesthood changed, then the law came tumbling down (Hebrews 7:12, 18-19
email wrote:One C of C told me that there are no more Jews and Gentiles. I had to correct the misuse of Scripture. The verse also says also no longer Men and females !!! Last time I checked WE Are Different ! There are Men and there are females,as well as there are Jews and Gentiles. The meaning of the verse is it does not matter what we are, we come to Messiah Yeshua the same way.I am sure you already know this.
The terms, "Jew" and "Gentile", are no longer valid "in Christ"
). However, as much as we operate in this world, where there is still male and female, master and slave, Jew and Gentile, I would agree that there are laws concerning some of those distinctions (I Timothy 2:8-15; I Corinthians 14:34-35; Ephesians 5:22-6:9
), even though those distinctions are temporal. I understand those distinctions to disappear, once we exist exclusively in Christ (Matthew 22:23-30
But, how do you explain Romans 10:12
- "no difference between Jew and Greek"
? Outside of Jewish traditions, which are optionally observed, what real difference is there?
email wrote:I do believe that the land contract and covenant by G-d to israel is binding todat and forever do to Scripture Gen 17 Forever means Forever and all those who would divide jerusalem are in trouble Obama as well Joel 3:2.
Are Aaron and his sons supposed to offer sacrifices forever
, or does "forever" not always mean "forever"?
Moses, lawgiver and prophet, wrote:"In the tabernacle of meeting, outside the veil which is before the Testimony, Aaron and his sons shall tend it from evening until morning before the LORD. It shall be a statute forever to their generations on behalf of the children of Israel. (Exodus 27:21)
"'For the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the heave offering I have taken from the children of Israel, from the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and I have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons from the children of Israel by a statute forever.'" This is the consecrated portion for Aaron and his sons, from the offerings made by fire to the LORD, on the day when Moses presented them to minister to the LORD as priests. The LORD commanded this to be given to them by the children of Israel, on the day that He anointed them, by a statute forever throughout their generations. (Leviticus 7:34-36)
The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses; and Aaron was set apart, he and his sons forever, that he should sanctify the most holy things, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister to Him, and to give the blessing in His name forever. (I Chronicles 23:13)
I believe most lexicographers agree that "forever" can mean "age lasting", as seen in the above verses (see also, Exodus 21:6
Keep in mind, God's promises to Abraham were fulfilled (Genesis 12:1-3, 7; 13:15-17; 15:18-21; 23:30-31; Joshua 21:43-45; I Kings 4:20-21; II Chronicles 9:26; Nehemiah 9:7-8
), and His promises to Israel were conditional, which they did not keep (Deuteronomy 28:1-68
, especially verses, 62-68
email wrote:The tanach was given to the jewish people but do you know that the new (Covenant-Testament) is Given to the Jewish people ? the New Covenant is a Covenant between G-d and the Jewish People. Jer. 31:31 because of this verse as well as Isa.53 I becabe a believer.The N.T.is 100% as Ruth the Gentiles can belong and be saved if they accept the Messiah and King of Israel by faith believe and be Immersed . Thus the gentiles are Grafted in with us and we both are One New Man.both Jew and Goyim-Gentile in Yeshua the Messiah. Many many people do not know that the N.T. is a Jewish covenant to the Jewish people.The Gospels are really still the Old testament in Transition Yeshua was teaching a more perfect Torah because the Tanach was a shadow of things to come. ... Gentiles look at this whole thing through Gentile eyes. You should look through Mid eastern eyes as being Grafted in to our Covenant remember the Old and New are both Jewish,covenants by G-d to the Jewish people Gentiles are the wild branch grafted in Thus Gentiles are the Guests.Paul bears this out in Romans 9,10,11,12 Don't get the big head don't boast gentiles ,,but that is exactly what has happened. Acts 15 voted four things Gentiles have to do to belong in the Christian Community with us Jews. ... I am using the term Jewish New testament or Jewish Covenant because it is Jer.31:31 This has not changed just because many jews have not accepted it. No we cannot and must not Judahise the N.T which means try to impose or try and say Gentiles must become Jews.You being a Gentile have been grafted into the Jewish Covenant you are no longer a Gentile meaning of the Pagan Nations you are no longer a Pagan you are a Citizen of Israel and a sead of Abraham with all the blessings of being adopped. So if there are Gentiles in your Church they are not saved if they become saved then they are no longer Gentiles ,in darkness without G-d They are adopped into the Family grafted into the Jewish Covenant given to the Jewish People Remember you are the Guest we are the Natural Branches. Now Please dont think I mean this by you being inferior I do not but this is the layout of G-ds plan. The Church is supposed to be like Ruth,,I mean the gentiles who come to faith. Ruth a Moabite said to Namoi Your people will be my peole Your G-d will be My G-d. Nowadays most gentiles have missed this point. You have joined yourself to a Jewish Covenant. You do not have to become physical Natural Jewish you have become adopped to Israel you are now a Spiritual Jew. ... non Jewish believers are Grafted in . Romans chapters 9,10,11,12 Eph .chapter 2 says that gentiles become part of and citizens of Israel. If the Church could learn the story of Ruth. Your people will be my people your God my God The God of Israel. They would understand how the gentiles were supposed to treat God's people.The Jewish People. ... But many Goyim-Gentiles have no clue of the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. They only have been taught from those who departed from the Faith such as Augustien,Chrystosom,Irainus, all the Greeks and then Romans and then the Popes ,Constentine and the wholeof Rome. ... Untill later today please read Jer.31:31 I have just studyed two weeks ago with two families who attended the assembly which is called The Church of Christ. The Holy Bible is the only book we will use .These are my only ground rules. I started with this verse Jer. 31:31. I also asked them to close the Birit HaDashah (New Testament) and teach me about Messiah yeshua (Jesus) from the 1st covenant-Testament. They could not ! I reminded them that when Messiah Yeshua appeared on the road to Emaus this is how He taught. ... Law and Music. I understand your members want to distance yourselves from Stone and Campbell but this is impossible .The error of the stance of the Churches of Christ teaching stems from Calvin through them.Although some has been changed and they dropped some but the seed of Replacement Theology started in the 3rd and 4th century. The Greeks came up with the Allegory way of thinking this was not Jewish thought of the Apostles. I wanted you to get acquainted with the 1st lesson of the Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith which is found in Jer. 31:31 The 1st Covenant was given to the Jewish People and the 2nd or New Covenant(Testimentum Latin- testament-English) was also given ONLY to the Jews. Now this truth is not taught in most Churches. The Church of Rome has done everything they could to de-Jewish the New testament. So the Gospel ,the New Covenant is Jewish and then the Church was started at the Feast of Shavote-Pentecost All Jews then the Church or Assembly was all Jewish for some years until Acts 10 . A Roman Acts 8 was a Black Jew from Africa reading a Scroll of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Now to your question Law. What you may have missed is that Yeshua commended the Pharisees for trying to keep the Law but Yeshua was condemning the " Oral" Law. The Law in the 1st Covenant exposed what sin is ,remember Yeshua said that All the Law hang on the first two commands .The New Covenant Law is really more difficult. Yeshua expanded the Law higher.For example before an individual could have sex and it would be called Adultery now in this New Covenant one only has to look at a man to lust after him or a man lusting after a girl in their heart and mind. Woh that is very difficult but this is a high standard. We as Jews do not cease being Jews. It was the Gentiles we had to find out what to do with these Pagans .A meeting was called by the Jewish Assembly-Church of Messiah-Christ if you will. After the meeting Jacob stood up ( His Name is Not James (Check your Greek) We cannot bind the Law on these Gentiles but only four things will be required of the Gentiles if they want to be a Part of the Church of Christ ,,,Most gentiles do Not know what these four things are ! ... You see if you look at this whole thing as Gentiles being the guests Romans 9,10,11,12 and that Salvation is of the Jews,,and that the Jewish Root supports you and you do not support the Root then things become much clearer. ... Hebrews was written to the Jews the book of Jacob (James) was written to the 12 tribes of the Jews the entire New testament is Jewish a Covenant to the Jewish people,,Gentiles are now invited to become members of this Jewish covenant and become citizens of Israel Eph.Chapter 2 Please respect our Rabbi Messiah Yeshua and be good guests because in Romans 9,10,11,12 Rabbi Sha'ul (Paulos- Paul) said Hey Gentiles remember you are a wild branch from a tree not supposed to be on the Jewish tree but because of your faith of the Messiah Yeshua King of Israel you are allowed to be grafted in and be saved BUT do not get the big head and try to take over ! OR you will be broken off as the natural Jewish branches were broken off due to unbelief for if God broke off the natural branches which are His chosen people God will surly break off the Gentile wild branches if they try to mistreat Israel or try to take over. Sadly this is what has happened. ... I hope this helps. I only hope you take a long look and examine how this Faith and Covenant came from in the context of Hebrew eyes as it was written and intended to be. ... I would like you to read the book " Our father Abraham" This is the history and what happened from the first Church in Jerusalem up to present showing the departure in the 2nd century by the Greeks and Romans,then the Reformers till now. This is an excellent book I have conducted many many groups and used this Book by Marvin Wilson
Matt. 10:5 Yeshua said Do Not take the Gosple to the Gentiles but only go to the Jews !
Matt 15 " My Father has Only sent me to the Jewish people
Acts 10 1st gentile saved
Acts 15 Gentiles Must be Jews,,, this was voted down Jacob(James) stood up,,No they do not ,,But 4 things the Gentiles Must do.
This is a wonderfully elaborate explanation. I realize that you were not trying to defend this entire story, but I believe you have made too much out of the verses that support your story:
Jeremiah, an OT prophet, wrote:"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying,'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
I will not deny that this covenant was originally made with members of physical Israel and Judah (Acts 1:1-8; 2:1-47
). But, does that necessarily
mean that the New Covenant contained the baggage of those people? Consider this:
Joshua wrote:"Now therefore, fear the LORD, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the LORD! And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:14-15)
At one point "Israel" was itself pagan! Did the Law of Moses incorporate and extend their pagan belief system? No! So, why should we assume that the New Covenant incorporated the Old Covenant, just because it involved the same people? Was not the Lord clear through Jeremiah, "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers"
? You have assumed too much.
Now, let us look more closely at Romans 11
Paul wrote:For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. (Romans 11:13-25)
If the covenant was given to the Jews, then why would any Jew be jealous of a Gentile? How can a Gentile or minister to Gentiles possibly provoke Jews to jealousy, if the New Covenant was given ONLY to the Jews?
You have assumed that the root and stock in Paul's above analogy is the Jewish Old Covenant. However, alternative interpretations exist which satisfy not only this passage but more of Scripture:
- Abraham - The promise was given to Abraham that he might be the father of the faithful. All those of faith are blessed with believing Abraham (Galatians 3:8-9). Although the Jews descended from Abraham, his physical lineage is not what is important (Matthew 3:9-10).
- Jesus - Jesus is the only tree I know in Scripture that provides sustenance and life (John 15:1-6). I did not know that the Jewish covenant produced life. I thought it produced death (Romans 7:5-25).
Either of these better fit the context of providing life first to the Jews and later to the Gentiles without extending the authority of the Old Covenant, which violates the other passages we have cited.
Although the New Covenant was first delivered and preached to the Jews (Acts 1:8; Romans 1:16
), we should not assume
that it was inherently Jewish, preserving all the authority of the first covenant to the Jews.
Salvation of any Jew is an occasion of great rejoicing for both Gentile (Romans 11:12
) and heaven (Luke 15:1-7
). So, they had not been utterly cast off. Yet, even though a remnant would be saved (Romans 11:14
), the Jewish nation had been indeed cast away (Romans 11:15
; compare with, Acts 27:22
). So, in what sense? If not in a national way, then in what way? Not individual, because individual Jews could be saved, like Paul...
email wrote:most of the old has been fullied by Yeshua. The Law was not nailed to the Cross " Sin " was ! Gods Law stands as it did then however now its tougher we as Jews under the Old Covenant layed with people in the sex act and that was sin now Rabbi Yeshua says if you think it youve sinned.Alerady in your heart.
I confess that the New Law calls us to a higher, spiritual standard than the Old Law (Matthew 5
). However, the Old Law was part of the documents that defined sin and demanded a reckoning, and they were therefore included in the documents "nailed to the cross"
. Look at the context:
Paul wrote: And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. (Colossians 2:13-17)
what document did Jesus triumph (Romans 8:3-4; 10:4
)? What "shadow"
regulated food, drink, festival, new moons, and sabbaths? Where else do we read of such laws, except in the law given at Sinai?
You are right that the document against us was not simply the Old Law. It was all systems of law and statements of debt, which pronounced sin, because we cannot be justified by any of them (Galatians 3:21-22
), which included the Old Law.
email wrote:We obey the Sabbath because God instituted this in Genises and carried this through the Ten Commandments.
The Seventh Day Adventists also claim that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation. However, the evidence of Scripture shows that God instituted Sabbath for the Israelites as part of their covenant. Please see this forum post with more detail:
email wrote:We do not eat Filth we eat what G-d said is food the other animals are created a garbage collectors. And yes Peters vision was not about food as the Gentile Church would have you believe ,the vision was about the cleansing of the Pagan Gentiles at that moment a knock at the door ,,,who?? But Gentiles Romans stood at the door of Simon the tanner and kefa -Peter was there on the roof doing his daily Jewish prayer laying Teffila-prayer.
In that vision, the Lord told Peter that the animals were now clean. Even if it was a figure, it was still true. But, regardless, Paul is very clear:
Paul wrote:Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (I Timothy 4:1-5)
Again, if you feel uncomfortable or unsafe in disobeying the Jewish dietary laws, please do not disobey them (Romans 14:13-23
). However, please do not command others to abstain (Romans 14:1-12
), since there is no Bible authority for such condemnation. The authority of the Old Law has been dissolved; otherwise, Paul would clearly be violating the dietary laws and absolving men of their guilt accordingly, which would make him a false teacher and false prophet according to the Old Law. Would it not?
email wrote:I believe the verse is in Zach. or Zeph. that says when Messiah Yeshua returns and is King and resides in Jerusalem everyone must come to Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles if they do not no rain will fall thus they will go hungry. This is yet to come.Also when He comes back Sacrifices will begin again.This cannot mean Animal Sacrifices cause Yeshua is the final Lamb,,so it may mean a sacrifice of praise and worship.I have a harp made for me in Jerusalem.
Just as you have interpreted the sacrifices of Zechariah's vision (Zechariah 14:16-19
) as figurative (not animal, but Jesus), I have interpreted the entire vision as figurative (not physical Jerusalem, but spiritual Jerusalem, etc.), and so I understand it fulfilled from Pentecost onward (Isaiah 2:1-3; Micah 4:1-2; Acts 1:1-8, 2:1-11, 38-47
email wrote:I would like you to read the book " Our father Abraham" This is the history and what happened from the first Church in Jerusalem up to present showing the departure in the 2nd century by the Greeks and Romans,then the Reformers till now. This is an excellent book I have conducted many many groups and used this Book by Marvin Wilson ... please read this book it is an eye opener. I have had several groups as well as my husband has had groups as well ,many members from the C of C have attended as well as many other Churches of different denominations. My husband just told me we are going back to Israel in January. I am so happy what a surprise. have a Happy New year and enjoy the Music from Paul Wilbur the words really touch the heart ! m273p15cafter you read this book and after we return from Israel,Lord willing,lets discuss the word of God further.
Dear friend, I appreciate the book recommendation. I have saved the reference, but over the years of operating the ISOT site, I have been "recommended" several books - more than I can ever read. Since you have read it and are persuaded by it, I will trust you to champion its strongest arguments.
Several statements were addressed to the precise chronology of Christ's last week and to "last events" (Christ's return to Mt. Zion, rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, etc.). I am postponing comment on these, because I believe our other discussion is more fundamental, and any attention spent on these topics - at this point would be distracting. Hopefully, we can discuss these, once we conclude our discussion on the nature of the covenants.
Several verses have already been provided, and I do not want to "pile it on"; however, I am including these just for reference, not to ask your immediate answer:
Paul wrote:Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband." Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. (Galatians 4:21-31)
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:7-13)
Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid. (Matthew 17:1-6)
I realize that I have provided an enormous amount of material. Please do not feel like you must study and answer it all, although I would not clear your conscience from any of it. However, for the sake of this discussion, I would request that you focus on the first part, because I believe it addresses the fundamental points of difference.
I look forward to your response.
May God help us to have a sincere love of truth (II Thessalonians 2:9-12; Isaiah 66:4