jlay wrote:Well, I had a nice response typed up and lost it. Bummer.
Cheez, you make a fundemental contextual error. Let's look at Exodus 12:49 in context.
42It is a night 1to be observed for the Lord for having brought them out from the land of Egypt; this night is for the Lord, to be observed by all the sons of Israel throughout their generations.
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it;
47 “All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this.
48 “But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to 3celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.
49 “The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.”
Let's look at all the problems. If I took vs. 43 out of context, we would interpret that no foreigner can eat of the passover. But that isn't what the context says at all. It says, under certain conditions, they may. If, they conform.
Conditions:
-A desire to celebrate it
-Circumcision
-Live amongst the congregation of Israel.
Context really is everything. So, are you saying we are to observe the passover, and have non-circumcised males circumcised? Yes or no. So, to partake in the passover, the foreigner must meet the conditions of the Law. But, they are not required to do participate. Not to mention that v.49 could be taken to relate only to the law of circumcision. It certainly appears as such.
The implications are even worse for Leviticus 24:17. Unless you are suggesting that we bring back stoning. Seriously, one ought to thoroughly consider the implications before making such post. If you say follow the law, then there it is, black words on a white page..
Israel was determined by the covenant of circumcision.
G-man covered this pretty well. Circumcision is nothing if there is no circumcision of the heart, which is what we're required to have, and what was required in the Tanakh (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4). Romans 2:25-29 explains this very well. Notice there how he speaks of the Law (verses 25, 26, and 27).
And yes, only foreigners who wish to participate may participate. That sounds reasonable to me. Also, if he wishes to celebrate one of God's holidays, it also seems reasonable to expect him to follow God's laws as well. Makes sense. Also look at Numbers 15:15-16. "You, congregation, and the resident alien have one law (Torah), an eternal law through your generations: it will be the same for you and for the alien in front of the LORD. You and the alien who resides with you shall have one instruction and one judgement." Yes, before that it speaks of sacrifice, but then it says there shall be one "law," one "instruction," one "judgement." That's not only related to sacrifice.
G-man also explained about stoning (from the text itself, even), so I'll leave that out.
Israel IS determined by the covenant of circumcision. Meaning that WE are as well. Does that mean of the flesh? No, that is the outward ritual that expresses the inward change, that is, the circumcision of the heart. Is circumcision of the flesh needed for salvation? Of course not. That's why Paul argued against circumcision so much. The Judaizers of his day preached Jesus, but said that all Gentiles needed to go through the process of proselytization to be saved, which included three things: circumcision, immersion in a mikvah, and making a sacrifice (the whole ritual of proselytization was referred to as simply "circumcision" by the rabbis, as a sort of short-hand label). There is no ritual of proselytization in the Scriptures, and obviously, salvation is obtained by faith, not by status (Circumcision was a short way of saying Jewish, and Uncircumcision was used for Gentiles, Ephesians 2:11). But does that mean Paul preached against circumcision? Then why did he have Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:1-3? Paul preached against circumcision as a way of gaining right-standing with God, and against it as something necessary for salvation, but he certainly wasn't against it as a genuine expression of devotion to God. The teaching of the day was that all Israel had a place in the world to come. Since Gentiles could become Jewish through the ritual of proselytization, the Rabbis taught that they were guaranteed a place in the Kingdom of Heaven as well. But Paul preached against this to show that what was needed before anything, and what the only thing that actually IS needed, is faith in the Messiah.
And if that's not enough to convince, then consider this. Should we do away with baptism? Both rituals are prescribed in the Bible. Both are outward expressions of an inward change. Why is one okay but the other not? If baptism isn't necessary for faith but is so important, then why is circumcision different?
Israel and the church are not separate, they are one.
You just can't have your cake and eat it too. If they are one, then that is even less reason to pay attention to the events in Palestine. If not, then it becomes a matter of theology.
I see this as nothing having to do with "having my cake and eating it too." The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, claim that all of God's people are Israel, regardless of ancestry. No one can deny this, it's there in black and white. But, there are promises to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as well. Even if their descendants are not God's people through faith, and they may be "enemies of the Gospel," they are "beloved by God for the sake of their fathers" according to Romans 11:28. If they're enemies of the Gospel, I can't see who this could be talking about except for the actual blood descendants of Israel.
Now, as far as the events in Palestine, this is political and something that is pretty much outside of the Scriptures. I would not make theological doctrine for that. Personally, I would say Israel as a nation deserves and needs our support, but the Scriptures do not command that we support the corporate political state, so I will say that that is a matter of individual choice according to one's own conscience.
Jesus and His apostles said nothing of the Law being done away with. Because that was NOT the plan for Israel. Jesus' earthly ministry was to usher in the new covenant promised to the circumcision. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
You don't seriously think that Jews who accept Jesus are still supposed to observe the Torah, do you? For one, that again disregards that Israel is the body of true believers in God and His Messiah according to the Bible. Whether Jew or Greek, both are ISRAEL if they accept Messiah. But it also makes Jesus into a bit of a flip-flopper. What, He expects all His followers in the beginning to observe the Law at first, then comes to Paul and says, "Okay, just kidding, now tell them to change"?
And now we come to the Jeremiah passage. It's used often in debates about this subject, so I'll treat it with detail. Let's look at what the text says.
"'Behold, days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (notice "the house of Israel and the house of Judah"), not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,' declares the LORD. 'But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,' declares the LORD, 'I will put My law (Hebrew: Torah) within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying "Know the LORD," for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,' declares the LORD, 'for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
As I already pointed out, this "b'rit chadashah" or "new covenant" is explicity stated to be made with Israel and Judah. This prophecy was made when Israel and Judah were separate, but note how after that, it says that the new covenant will be made with the house of Israel, showing that in the future when this covenant would be made, Israel would not be separated any more, but would be unified again, and called by its one original name. So the new covenant is made at a time when Israel is restored to her fullness.
Next, the new covenant is contrasted with the covenant which was made with "their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." This covenant of the exodus is then further defined as God's covenant "which they broke." This is obviously the Sinai covenant of Moses. But please note carefully what is being contrasted. The covenant of the exodus is described as the covenant which "they broke." This is contrasted with the new covenant in which the Torah will be written on the heart. Jeremiah uses clear terms to describe the stark contrast of the "breaking" of the first covenant and the Torah being written on the heart of the second. The contrast isn't between two ways of salvation or of two different ways of prasing or serving God, one being old and obsolete, the other being new and fresh. No, it's obvious that Jeremiah is saying that the contrast is between breaking and keeping the covenants, between obedience and disobedience.
The first covenant was broken by Israel, almost right afterwards, with the golden calf incident. In fact, while a believing remnant has always existed in Israel, the nation as a whole has NEVER in its history walked as a corporate whole according to the Laws and will of God. But Jeremiah envisions a revival of the whole of the nation of Israel, where she will for the first time have the Torah written on her heart and will live accordingly with sincere faith. That's what's new in the b'rit chadashah according to Jeremiah. It's not a different Torah or Law, or a different or new way of knowing or loving God. It's the same Torah, which was before written on the hearts of the faithful remnant of Israel, but will then be written on the heart of the nation as a whole.
Jeremiah is certainly speaking of the same Torah, as he describes the first covenant as the covenant "which they broke." But the covenant that's coming is described as "I will put my Torah within them, and on their heart I will write it." In this context that the prophet gives, it's clearly denoting the same Torah that was rejected originally.
And now we'll look at what it means to have the Torah "written on the heart." This is the same language used in the Shi'mah (Deuteronomy 6:4-9). There it says,
"Listen, Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up."
The word of God being written on the heart is something which always results in submission and obedience to Him by living according to the Torah that He's given. To have the Torah written on one's heart is to have one's life marked by its commandments and ordinances. To have the Torah of God written on the heart does not mean that what used to be something "on the outside" is now "on the inside." The Bible makes it clear that what's in one's heart is what's manifested by one's actions. Jesus Himself taught that it's by the outward actions that you can see the truth about someone's heart (Matthew 7:20). This is exactly what James meant when he says that "faith without works is dead" in James 2:26. It's also what he means when he says that a believer is "justified by his works" in James 2:24. He's not saying the opposite of Paul, who says that we're justified by faith and not by works, because they both knew that when God's Torah is written on your heart, your actions will conform to it. Paul's concerned with HOW the Torah is written on the heart, which is by faith, whereas James is conerned with how it's MANIFESTED, which is by righteous works and obedience to God's Laws. And how do we know what's righteous in God's eyes, and what His laws are? By the Torah, which is His standard that He gave to us.
If you agree with Paul and James, then you're in good company; Jesus did too. We all know that He said He came not to abolish the Torah but to fulfill (although I still don't get that people can accept this, yet say that "fulfill" still means to negate and do away with), but after He said this, He explained what He meant by fulfill. Let's look at what He said.
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Torah (!), until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
This seems to be quite clear. Also, note that where this translation says "keeps," the word in Greek, "poiew," means "to do." That's how the King James translates it, actually.
So what Jesus is saying He means by "fulfilling the Torah" is that it shall be made living and active in the lives of His followers. He desires each of His disciples to do the commandments and teach others to do the same. It's in this that one is called great in His Kingdom. And it's through His disciples that Jesus causes the Torah to be fulfilled, as a part of HaB'rit Chadasha, the New Covenant.
As I said before, this is simply Jesus repeating what His Father had stated over and over and over again in the Tanakh. Look at Exodus 15:26, Leviticus 20:22, 22:31, Deuteronomy 4:6, 7:11-12, 11:22, 29:9. When God gave us His laws and statutes, He expected us to keep them. And when He said that they were meant forever, He meant forever. Never has He said that they were just meant for one group of His people, or even that He had more than one group as His people. When God told us in His Torah that He finds certain things good and others bad, has He changed His mind? Is He not the Immutable, the Unchangeable, the Eternal? Is He not the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow? It's through the keeping of His Torah that we're made holy, and it's how we're sanctified. Again, when Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" in John 14:15, He's only repeating His Dad, who had been saying the same thing throughout Israel's history (Exodus 20:6, Deuteronomy 11:1, 11:22, Joshua 22:5, Nehemiah 1:5, Daniel 9:4. Also, check 1 John 2:3, 5:3).
So this new covenant is what Jeremiah tells us of when he says that the Torah will be written on the heart. He prophesies of the whole nation living out the righteousness prescribed by God in the Torah. This must have been what Paul was thinking of when he wrote about when "all Israel will be saved" in Romans 11:26.
Also, then when it says that no one will say "Know the LORD," one must take notice that in Semitic languages such as Hebrew, "know" can mean more than just mentally acknowledging something or being aware of something. Adam knew his wife in Genesis 4:1, and she conceived. To know someone in a covenant means to have a relationship with them, and to be loyal to that covenant, and only to that other person. For example, Hosea 13:4 says, "Yet I have been the LORD your God since the land of Egypt; and you were not to know any god except Me, for there is no savior besides Me." Also look at Amos 3:2, which has God saying to Israel, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all of your iniquities." So Jeremiah is saying no one will have to exhort Israel to be loyal to God anymore.
And finally, according to the prophet, this national revival is the result of God's forgiveness of sins, as it says, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Thus, because of the forgivness that is in Messiah, Israel as a whole will be resurrected from its sins and brought to full obedience to God and His Son.
Israel= circumcision, law, and prophecy.
Church the body of Christ= grace and mystery.
Why would God's feelings on what is good, righteous, bad, and wrong change over time? And why would He establish a works based, souless religion at first only to replace it with something that not only contradicts what He's said before, but works differently? Jesus and His works are the culmination of Judaism, the blossoming of the mysteries of God, not a new system and a new way.
I've believed in the "law of grace" of Paul and "Christianity" being what we're under now as opposed to "the law of works" that was the former Judaism and Torah, but serious study and contemplation are putting these beliefs in much doubt.
Of course, and I'll explain why. Because you are rejecting what it says about revelation. You say, Paul didn't get a NEW revelation. But Paul's revelation was so new, that he even had to explain it personally to Peter. Deuteronomy 29:29 says, "The
secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever . That is the basis of the prophetic period. Israel had things revealed to them and things hidden. And they knew it.
Paul says in Eph. 3, "For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the
dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the
mystery:" Mystery just means secret. It is NOW revealed. This was written about 30 years after Christ.
Peter even wrote, 2 Peter 3:15-16, "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto
him (not "unto us", but "unto him") hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things hard to be understood ...." (part in parenthesis added for emphasis)
And Paul says in Romans 16:25 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to
my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the
mystery, which was kept secret since the world began." This program was kept secret, not revealed through the law or prophets.
And, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not man's gospel.
For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it,
but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ". (Gal. 1:11-12) Not taught, but given by direct revelation. I'll go with Paul. You should too, as it will end the confusion.
http://romansthruphilemon.files.wordpre ... e-law2.pdf This is a good read.
First, I must correct you. I didn't say Paul didn't get a new revelation, he did. Galatians 3:8. When I say he didn't get a new revelation, I don't mean to say nothing new was revealed to him. That's ridiculous, as there'd be no point for revelation then. What I mean is that what he had revealed to him was not something that was new or alien to the Tanakh and the previous revelation of God. The Messiah, His death, His resurrection, His works, the forgiveness of sins through faith, and yes, even the gospel are all there in the Old Testament. It is only made clear and realized with the coming of Jesus and the New Testament. An answer to a riddle is not new, as the riddle was made with the answer in mind. If Paul had to explain to Peter what the Spirit revealed to him, it doesn't mean that it was because it was so new, but only that Peter could not understand yet. Deuteronomy 29:29 says pretty much that. What had already been revealed, the Torah, was meant for Israel forever. And the mysteries lying within it and in what would come after it with the prophets were only known by God.
Paul speaking of the stewardship of the grace of God that was given to him by Messiah has nothing to do with him saying that he had brought something outside of the Tanakh or better than it to the children of God. Same with him saying that the mysteries were now revealed to him. The mysteries and their answers were both already there, the answers were just given to Paul. That does not mean that he's done away with the things before the realization of such things.
Peter speaking of the wisdom revealed specifically to Paul also does not have anything to do with him bringing something completely new and out of nowhere to the table. All prophets and apostles of God have whatever wisdom and divine disclosure God chooses to reveal to them. If they didn't all have something different revealed to them and some specific purpose distinct from that of their brothers, it would be pointless. It doesn't mean that they go against each other, just that they compliment each other as God sees fit.
Paul calling the gospel his gospel does not say at all that it is strictly his revelation. He was the emissary to the Gentiles, the chosen teacher of God, a holy saint faithful to God and his teaching. Are you saying that it was his and not Jesus'? Does his claiming the gospel as his own mean that it's his alone?
And brother, you seem to be either very confused or very blinded. How can you say that the gospel was not revealed in the Law or the Prophets? Jesus, Paul, Peter, John; they all preached that Messiah and His works were all embedded in the Tanakh. Yes, they were not made clear or visible, but they were there. Please remember Luke 24:27. Don't forget John 5:39 and John 5:46 either (also, keep in mind that the only Scriptures that they had in that time were the Old Testament, ie, the Law and the Prophets). Paul also claimed that Jesus and the gospel are revealed in the Law and the Prophets in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 and Galatians 3:8. You are mistaken, my friend.
I will read the link, but please, brother, ponder sincerely what has been said. I will do the same with your words and this link.
