The purpose of this blog is to give men who are, or will become the leaders in their homes, a way to build each other up and better become Bereans. Proverbs 27:17 says that "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
As we seek to sharpen each other , 2 Timothy 3:16 says," All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". Each time you post, please include at least two scriptures that clearly back up what you are trying to say. May God speak to each one of us and perfect us through His Word.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The topic of the week (2)
Romans 2; Jew or not? Circumcised or not? Law needed or not? What does it mean to be a Jew?
Galatians 4 Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Those spoken of here were “under the law”(v 5), and now are called “Heirs of God through Christ”(v 7). I guess that before Paul got to them they did not know God(v 8) and worshiped false gods( v 8) and were bound to the elements of the this world (v3). Then they got to know God and returned later to “weak and beggarly elements” (v 9) like “days, months, times, years”(v10). So what they returned to was idolatry, not Torah observance. Then verse 5 says they were under the law before Paul came to them. So they were Idolatrous, Not serving the Torah of Moses. They “knew not God” (v 8). I cannot think, in keeping with the breadth of Scripture, that the Set apart days in Lev 23 (the Sabbaths of YHWH are what is called “weak and beggarly elements” (v 9). In keeping with Paul’s character, he could not have believed that. It is clear that he kept them. Sons of YHWH observe His festivals.
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
Ultimate culmination of all of life will result in believers eternally "resting" with Him. I still eat bread and I still rest each week on the Seventh day as a sign that He is my creator. ……… Ex 13:6, 16 are signs, tokens, and memorials for us to remember YHWH. He is forgotten if we don't do the things instructed there. Dealing with Unleavened bread and Passover: Exo 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
I am adopted(Gal 4:5) into Israel, the covenant people of YHWH , so I am part of the generations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc by being grafted in and brought near by the blood of Yahshua.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
So for me this is a commandment FOREVER because of the unprecedented work of the Savior on Calvary.
The weekly Sabbath is not the only thing referred to, you will see. It is also the set apart days in Lev 23. They are called "My Sabbaths".
Thanks Mike. I see the days and months, etc (in verse 9) as definitely speaking of the Torah observances. That is the whole point of Galatians. Could it be that your presupposition (Paul would never....) is forcing the text to say something different?
Also, Sid has a presupp; he says that God would never call something a sin in the OT, then not in the NT. Well, what about approaching the Holy of holies in the Temple. Isn't that exactly what God did? You would die before if you went beyond the curtain, Not AFTER Christ died on the Christ. So, my point is that Christ death DID change things and this was all a part of YHWH's plan.
I happen to agree with you, Mike, that we need to observe Sabbath. The FOREVER you mention IS Christ Himself. He IS our SabbathRest. as I detailed in an earlier post. But too many scriptures inform me that the particular day is no longer relevant - Rom 14:5 off memory (I think you are aware of the others; if not, I'll take time to look them up)
As I asked Sid and Bo, what do you see as "given" UNTIL the SEED (Christ) came? jeffh
My posts will not be for the purpose of convincing you. Everyone has responded to you about Gal 3:19. We ( none of us ) don't see what you see. Would you like to talk about something else? Keep your view. It is fine with me.
The Torah is forever, Messiah is the word. He is the Torah. they are layers that co-exist.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW. WE HAVE NOT GIVEN UP GRACE.
Jeff, what happened right as Jesus died on the cross. The veil separating the Holy of Holies was rent in two. Because of what Christ performed on the cross we can now boldly approach the throne. Do you really read into that what was sin in the OT is now "not sin" in the NT? I can see where the variety of demoninations come from. We read it based on our presuppositions. I will say once more, the end result of holding the law as applicable and something we should follow has no downside as long as it is followed out of a heart of love and we realize that the following of it does not produce salvation. Hoping that God will overlook a callous view of sin because I view grace as license may cause us to "become "unfruitful."
The picture conjured up in my mind of YHWH saying "Because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot I will spew you out of my mouth" is not a pretty picture.
The statute that tells us that only the high priest can enter the Holy of holies is not set aside. We can boldly approach the throne of grace in heaven not the one on earth.
"Layers" is a good word.
Hebrews 10 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
It is the veil of His flesh that was torn so that I could enter the heavenly tabernacle. The one in the physical temple was a sign to us about spiritual. Everything in the temple was continued for 40 years after Messiah's death. Paul and the Apostles participated in its rituals and convocations until it was destroyed even though the top layer of truth had been revealed.
Incidentally, the temple was defiled hundreds of years before Messiah died and the veil was torn. The man/men that went into the holy of holies did not die immediately. The lack of immediate judgment for breaking a commandment does not prove the that the commandment was abolished. I shouldn't run stop signs even if I have noticed many people breaking the law by not braking, pun intended, though they do not die in an accident on the spot or even though they do not get a ticket.
The seventh day of the week still exists. We should participate in the rules of it until it is destroyed along with the the old heavens and earth. That is when time will be no more. That is when Sabbath will done away with. The sun, moon and stars have not been rolled up like a scroll yet, so we should still use those lights to know when to keep YHWH's feasts just like He set up from the beginning.
I guess it is too easy to misapply types and shadows and imagery and parables. Maybe we should just look into the perfect law and do what it says, instead of looking for nondescript and symbolic ways of keeping YHWH's commandments. There will be a great reward for the former and maybe only a symbolic reward for the latter.
Psalm 9 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. 12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. 13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
Matthew 5 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Revelation 22 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
You wrote: "Abram was saved by faith, not by the law. The law saved NO ONE. It only condemns to prepare us for Christ."
The law only condemns to prepare us for Messiah...? It doesn't teach us how to live in harmony with each other...? It doesn't explain how to walk in love...? It doesn't reveal the character of YHWH...? It doesn't make us wiser than our enemies...? etc...?
It does not save. That is for sure. But I sure wouldn't want to live in place where everyone was breaking it all the time.
Imagine no locks on doors. Imagine no computer hackers. Imagine no road rage. Imagine the lion laying down with the lamb.
The law cannot make these things happen. It only describes the fruit of a world, a people, a soul that has been saved. We will know saved people by the lack of commandment breaking going on. That is the reverse side of the same coin that says that we will know that they are Y'shua's disciples by their love.
Galatians3:19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
To be honest with you I really don't know what to do with this Scripture. But thanks to Kepha(Peter) there is one thing I know it can't be saying. That is that the Torah was done away with.
2Peter3:15 Bear in mind that YHWH’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Shaul also wrote you with the wisdom that Elohim gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the LAWLESS(Torah breakers) and fall from your secure position. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of Adonai and Savior Yeshua HaMashiach. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.
So, here I have Kepha telling me not to listen to people like you. No offense intended. Who say that Shaul said not to keep Torah. Kepha himself said that there are things Shaul said that are hard to understand. But there is one thing I should never get out of Shaul's writings and that's what you are saying on this blog.
Also I don't see how the passages you quoted are saying that I can't believe in salvation by grace and still believe that it is a sin to break the Shabbat. Please explain.
Acts 20 6 but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread. In five days we reached them at Troas, where we spent seven days.
Jeff, do you know when the feast of unleavened bread is this year? or was last year? or the year before? Would verse 6 mean much to most modern Christians? Since Paul was in the Roman empire visiting a "Gentile" church and Luke was writing to Theophilus why didn't Luke tell us the name of the Roman month and day of it? Why did Paul tell the Corinthians to keep the feast of unleavened bread? Why did he say that he was going to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost in 1 Corinthians? Why are the time references in the NT all in relation to Sabbath and the Biblical feast days and not according to the Roman calendar? In Acts 13 42-44, why did Paul wait a whole week till the next Sabbath to preach to the gentiles if the very next day (Sunday) was the Christian sabbath? Doesn't it seem that he should have said, "We do not need to wait a week, tomorrow is the Lord's day." instead?
7 On the first day of the week, we assembled to break bread. Paul spoke to them, and since he was about to depart the next day, he extended his message until midnight.
What part of the above verse says that they were having a church service? What part would lead you to believe that it was in the morning? Do you think that these people thought that the first day of the week started at evening? Why didn't they call this day "The Lord's Day"? Why is there no mention in the whole NT of "The Lord's day" except in Revelation when John is describing "The day of the Lord" which is about the final judgment? Why is every reference to the first day of the week during the count to Pentecost? Why does`the literal translation of the phrase really say "one of (the) weeks" instead of first day of the week? Why is this phrase always used during the feast of weeks count? Do you think that Paul preached from morning until midnight? Or just noon till midnight? What time of day did they break the bread?
8 There were many lamps in the room upstairs where we were assembled,
Why even mention the lamps if the meeting started in the daylight? What is in this passage that proves that these people were keeping "The Lord's Day" in place of the Sabbath? What can one passage of scripture that literally says "one of weeks" prove about us not needing to keep the Sabbath and that we should keep Sunday? Where is the command in scripture to keep Sunday as the Christian day of worship or to keep it instead of or as a Sabbath? Who is reading into this passage?
Do you see Abraham keeping Sabbath and teaching his offspring to do the same and then YHWH expecting his descendants to know about it and keep it as they are traveling to Sinai? Do you see that Paul was traveling on Sunday? Do you see Messiah's temptation being the same as the Israelites'...to provide food on Sabbath? Do you see that Luke, in Acts 20, was writing to gentiles and expecting them to be keeping time by the Biblical feast days(Unleavened bread)instead of "Easter" of even "resurrection sunday"? Do you see anything that I have been posting?
Thanks Bo, I will wait. Barrett: Wow, that is quite a revealing admission. If I am hearing you correctly, many in this camp tell us we are deceived by all of the early church fathers and the reformation theologians, and you are being told by ONE man, Kepha, not to listen to me. Amazing. Did I read you correctly? May the Lord, Jesus bless your journey Barrett. What Jesus Christ did for you is your answer, Barrett. John 3:16 God bless, jeffh
Bo, to answer most of your questions, most imply arguments from silence, which doesn't really help: No, nothing in the text indicate any of it. The only clues I have in the text is that they broke bread and Paul preached. That is enough. Could I be wrong? sure. Could you? yes. That is a good question about Abraham keeping the Sabbath. Hopefully I can look into that.
I am really interested in what was the "added" UNTIL the SEED came in Gal 3:19. That will help me understand your theology much better. thanks Bo God bless, jeffh
You wrote: "Another one, packaged up just for you, Bo: please respond to this:
Joshua 1:13
"Remember the word which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, saying, 'The Lord your God gives you rest, and will give you this land.' (NASB)
1. Joshua connects the land with "rest".
2. Deuteronomy 3:20 - Moses had previously made this same connection.
B. Psalm 95:7-11 - This Psalm gives a warning against hard heartedness and speaks of the "rest" that Moses described as a spiritual rest.
7 ... Today, if you would hear His voice, 8 Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness; 9 "When your fathers tested Me, They tried Me, though they had seen My work. 10 "For forty years I loathed [that] generation, And said they are a people who err in their heart, And they do not know My ways. 11 "Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter into My rest." (NASB)
C. Hebrews 3:1-14 - Quotes Psalm 95:8-11 and speaks of the danger of not entering "rest" as the danger of falling away from Christ. Here Christ fulfills the "rest" originally given in the land. Hebrews 4 continues to speak of the fundamental promises to Israel as fulfilled in Jesus Christ and points to faith in Him as the means of receiving the Sabbath rest.
D. Matthew 11:28 - Promises true "rest" in Christ.
jh"
The obvious problem with all the above is that the word rest is an entirely different word than Shabbat or the kind of rest that is to be done on Shabbat. The Hebrew word used in your passages above is about a "resting place/a place to settle down" not about ceasing from our labor and work.
Once the people got to their "resting place" they were still commanded to rest every Shabbat. You have used two totally different words and concepts and tried to equate them. This is one of the main reasons that I cannot accept you "proof" that Y'shua is our Sabbath rest.
You Idea is like saying hamburger is the same as potting soil because both the dirt and the meat is ground. Two different grounds...two different rests.
If you could take some time and explain how Paul is not contradicting himself in these two verses, it would be appreciated.
Galatians 3 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added...
How can the law be added if nothing can be added to a covenant?
Barret: My boys just helped me read this. I thought Kepha was an advisor of yours; but you meant the quote from Peter in the Bible. Sorry, that makes more sense. Ha, this blogging gets funny sometimes. ok, that makes more sense. Yes, I would agree with you, not to listen to lawbreakers. Amen jeffh
Bo wrote, "Jeff, If you could take some time and explain how Paul is not contradicting himself in these two verses, it would be appreciated.
Galatians 3 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added...
How can the law be added if nothing can be added to a covenant?"
Jeff's response: Bo, that is a GREAT question. The verses in between help alot. There was the covenant to Abraham and his descendants (us). Goes back to Gen 3:15, Gen 12:1-3.
So, in verse 15, we see that God made it into a promise that could not be annuled. And nothing to be added TO it. Nothing has been.
But the law of Moses was different. It was bilateral and add AFTER Abram, NOT added to the Abrahamic Covenant. Big difference. So, verse 19 tells us that the REASON it was added was due to their transgressions, and HOW LONG it would last = UNTIL the SEED came.
Hear this Jeff and don't ask me again about gal 3:19. My presupposition is that all of Scripture must be in accord.
You are stating a verse that is not in accord with the whole of what Paul teaches, nor the breadth of the written word.
Or, we cannot hear Paul say the Torah is done away with.
Is Paul trying to lead us out of the way YHWH taught us to walk.
If he is then he should have been stoned.
Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
Gal 3:19 cannot mean what you make it out to say. Let's go on to something else. None of "us" accepts the Torah being done away with at the Cross.
How can Paul say the seed is Messiah in Gal 3:16 and then the seed is us in Gal 3:29? Layers.
I think the reason for the letter to the Galatians is that some people, presumably Jews, were telling them they must be circumcised to be accepted by YHWH. Gal 5:4
Circumcision is not prerequisite to salvation by grace. It is the Gift of YHWH. No law exists to give salvation.
That does not mean the law is done away with. It means it does not make you a disciple. After a man becomes a follower of yeshua, he will want to know how to live. Tho, the man who follows Yeshua by faith will show it by obedience to the Word, Torah, Law, Commandments.
What, pray tell, is the Law of Christ?
Gal 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
Gal 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Paul is confused or confusing. Do I have to help you carry your load or not?
Mike: With all due respect, I don't think you are being fair. You don't have to agree with me on the conclusion. In fact, I don't know that I have one yet. I hear you say what it is NOT. But this is a key passage for me. If Paul is NOT referring to the law, then what is he referring to that was added until the Seed came? I am not trying to be smart. If my theology is still developing, and this verse is not saying what it is saying, then I need to rethink. So, it is a big deal to me. You are free to ignore it, that's fine, but I hope you'll reconsider. thanks, In Christ alone, jeffh
Another question, Mike: You mentioned your presupposition was "is that all of Scripture must be in accord."
I totally agree with you. I have the same presupp, ok?
Now, if I could show you a theology that is different than yours as well as the typical "Law is done away with" theology, AND yet holds is that all of Scripture in accord. - even better, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO HEARING IT AND EVEN RECONSIDER YOUR THEOLOGY ON THIS?
Here is another verse that could be understood to take away the Law.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Paul, though, states the following:
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
What does Paul use to point out what love looks like? {Commandments.}
Good points. Esp on Rom 10:4. I agree with you on the "end" being Christ \ that it is not doing away with law. Gal 3:19 has me really puzzled, to be honest. What does he mean? It is a key verse and should not be ignored. It would be like throwing out 1 Jn 4:8, "God is love" if we are being told God is not love.
Haha. I can see how that would be disturbing. If someone was really taking the advice of one man over the opinion of the church fathers. I agree this mode of discussion leaves much to be desired.
I wont you to know that I'm in complete agreement with you that our fathers in the OT were saved through faith and not through works of Torah.
Also I've been praying and meditating on Gal3:19. I don't think that it is saying that the Torah was given only until the Seed(Messiah)comes. Could it be saying that the Torah was given because of our transgressions until the Seed comes. Of course after Yeshua took our transgressions on himself there is no way that the Torah could still be here for that reason. But that does not mean that it is still not here for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. So that we as men of Elohim may be equipped for every good work. 2Timothy3:16-17 Just thinking out loud. What do you think? I'm also not sure what "added for transgressions" means. But there is one thing I know it can't mean. And that is that Torah somehow saved the people of the OT before Yeshua.
I don't think that John3:16 is saying that I can't believe something is sin like breaking the Shabbat or homosexuality, and still believe in salvation by grace. I believe it is saying that even though we will sin, we are saved through His grace. John3:16 did not change the definition of sin. If breaking the Shabbat or homosexuality was sin before John3:16 they are still sins after John3:16.
All, I did not mean that following the law in the OT was the means of salvation. But I do think that even as today their high or low view of the law was indicative of where their heart was.
That can get sticky. I was pretty sure that was what you were meaning. I wonder if obedience still shows the attitude of the heart and the faith we carry.
Jeff, You have placed alot of emphasis on the "Abrahamic" Covenant. You also said: "But the law of Moses was different. It was bilateral and add AFTER Abram, NOT added to the Abrahamic Covenant. Big difference. So, verse 19 tells us that the REASON it was added was due to their transgressions, and HOW LONG it would last = UNTIL the SEED came." Two quick questions. 1. Gal. 3:15 says that a covenant cannot be added to, or dissanulled. How then, can you say that the Mosaic covenant has been dissanulled at this point after the Seed has come. Wouldn't that be directly contradicting what Paul just said five verses earlier?
2. For the Abrahamic covenant to take effect, YHVH told him in Gen.17:1 that he(Abraham) had to walk before Him and be perfect. If Abraham kept his side of the covenant then YHVH would be his YHVH and his children's YHVH after him. (Gen 17:7) Later, in Gen 26:5 YHVH tells Isaac that he will keep the covenant,"Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Galatians 3:6 says that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Would this not seem to say that Abraham's faith was recognized because of his fruit/works+faith? In our family we have been studying the life and ministry of Paul. I have been amazed how many times during his ministry that he publicly affirmed the importance of keeping the law(Acts 18:21, 24:14, 21:20-24, 25:8, 28:23 to name a few) I must believe that Paul wouldn't contradict himself. Either in the covenant being done away with and yet not, or by telling us that we do not need to keep the mosaic covenant and then keeping it himself. Remember Paul says in Galations 1:8 that if he or any other person or angel preach anything different than that which he had already preached, they would be accursed. Paul must have known then, that he was being quoted as being on both sides of these issues. We must look to the full breadth of scripture and see what he really meant.
Barret: I commend you for being the first one to attempt to explain what was added until the Seed came. Look again, if you will, at your response. You actually said the reason for the law given.
Orrin: Gen 17:1-2 are actually expressing the Unilateral Abrahamic Covenant. When God said, walk before me, that, in Hebrew, was not conditional. I believe this is the first time YHWH refers to Himself as El Shaddai. Mountain. He is NOT annuling anything; IF THE NDDOT PUTS A DETOUR SIGN UP BECAUSE THE ROAD IS BAD, UNTIL THE NEW BRIDGE IS BUILT, there is not annulment there. The detour has served it's purpose. Getting to the other side is still in effect, no problem. In a similar way, Gal 3:19 is saying that. Because the road was bad (their transgressions) God gave those external observances. Until a better way was provided - our bridge - Christ. No laws have been annuled, just a better way. (What Hebrews is all about) - a superior law. A law of love. The Holy Spirit IN us. Some examples: -Sacrifice to Christ to living sacrifice - Rom 12:1-2 - fulfillment, not annulment. -Blessing to Christ to all the families of the earth. Acts 1:8, ETC. Fulfillment, not annulment. -Eating clean meat to Christ to righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Rom 14:15-17 Fulfillment, not annulment. -Deliverance from Egypt to Christ to our deliverance from sin. No annulment, only fulfillment. (we don't go crossing the Red Sea anymore, correct?) -Passover to Christ to communion blood of the Covenant. In fact, forever. no annulment, only fulfillment.
On and on I could go, I think you get the point, though.
God still was the maker of the Covenant as He repeats it in the next verses. Note who is the subject and who is doing the action. ALL God. This is the classic error often made when people confuse the two covenants.
Take what you wrote about Gal 3:15. Again, here God is NOT annulling anything in the Abrahamic Covenant. We see in Gal 3:17, that Paul is switching to another Covenant. It says, "I say that the law, which was four hundred years later......" This is obviously Mosaic. Ok, so now go to the torah laws and notice the grammar. If we could all know Hebrew, it would help even more. God is calling for us as the subject of the sentence and the actions.
So, what you are saying regarding Gal 3:6, THEN, is spot on. You are actually supporting what I am trying to say. You mentioned Gen 26:5 - this, too, read the context. It is a beautiful picture of what happens AFTER God does the work of the Covenant, NOTICE just before the Unilateral Abrahamic Covenant is spoken and the result is Abram obeying God.
Acts does this alot. We DO obey God as a result of He work IN us through Christ. The Gospel brings the forgiveness which is, again the BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT, one which will LAST FOREVER, just as God expected from Israel (they failed, Christ succeeded). Ex 3:15ff.
Orrin: You also mentioned some verses in Acts. Good ones and I can see how you can come to that conclusion about Jewish observances. It is late, but just a couple of things: 1. Again, those reinforce what I have been trying to get across. The Law is NOT done away with; it prepares us for and leads us to Christ (not the other way around). REMEMBER PAUL SAID, "TO THE JEWS I BECAME A JEW AS TO WIN THEM OVER, not for torah observance, but for Christ. Acts 18:21
2. For example, you cited Acts 25:8, again Paul is very careful not to offend the Jews. He loves them. Also, you cited 24:14 - good one. no argument there. Then, Acts 21:25, the Gentiles, "no, not for them...." Then, 28:23, notice "who" this is concerning. Jesus. Jesus FROM the Law and Prophets. Jesus IS the fulfillment. It needed to be told.
Jeff, You said I am not playing fair. I will give you a more complete answer to Gal 3:19 instead of jumping to what it does not/cannot mean.
You keep asking what was added. It is obvious, the law was added.
The legal requirements were added to the promise made to Abraham. So that, until the seed come, YHWH could use the law to create transgressions/sin. That is, to prick the conscience, to cause men to turn to Him. Being made constantly aware of falling short of ever being able to completely obey those laws, the men will see that they need a savior.
I sure hope the young men are still out there. If we "old guys" dominate the conversation and sharpen our pencils in the ears of the young men who were original members of this blog, I am not sure we are fulfilling the law of Christ.
Jeff, you used one word picture of "until the seed was come." Allow me to think out loud. The way I would look at this is like I gave you a road map until you got GPS. They perform the same function. GPS does it better but it does not negate the need for direction and the I don't dispose of an understanding of the map because I got a GPS.
The law is referred to as the "perfect law of liberty" in James 1. You don't mess with perfection.
I still have too many ideas and cannot bring them down to a concise statement, which for me means 10,000 words :)}>
Considering that the question Paul is answering in Gal.3:19 in in the context of justification by faith, it would seem that his answer is intended for clarification in that regard. There are many other things that Paul says about the law that might seem to contradict his statement in verse 19, but there may be more to his thought process than meets the eye. This is not unusual for Paul. For now please check out this link:
http://www.eliyah.com/galatianskjv.html
It is a verse by verse commentary/teaching on Galatians and has some good insight. I cannot agree with everything the author says, but it seems that he has thought it through and tries to keep the whole book of Galatians and the whole Bible, for that matter, in view in his presentation.
I will continue to meditate and study and condense...I will try to condense.
To all: After reading some of these comments, I don't feel like anyone is saying that the Torah is our goal. I believe Christ is the goal. The Torah is our instructions on how to live for Christ. Some of these comments have been repetitive and are giving the same result. Jeff, I am not sure what you are trying to create from your comments. If we begin to remove the instructions on how to live, we are already dead, please don't say the spirit leads you and thats it. We consistently give our young and old children guidelines on how to live in our homes. And that is acceptable? We should remember YHWH does not change and will always be the same. I would like to include the thought also that if you remove his Sabbath, you are saying his Covenant is not good enough for you. Please be advised it has been given since the beginning of time and will continue in the future. Paul cannot change that, and neither has Messiah. Got to go to work. Add scripture later. thanks shannon
Sid: Amen. I think you've got it. That is EXACTLY what I am trying to get across. thanks, Now, read my post response to Orrin. That is what fulfillment is all about. The law remains, but a better way of fulfilling that law has come in Christ. jeffh
A better way to fulfill "do not commit adultery" is to not lust after her in our hearts...to love her husband and her.
A better way to "remember to keep the Sabbath holy" can not mean to not keep Sabbath. It has to be that we love YHWH so much that we cannot wait to spend the day with Him and our family obeying His request to rest and convocate. It has to be that we do not covet His time for ourselves.
It cannot be like this:
Amos 8 5 Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?
It must be like this:
Isaiah 58 13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
According to Isaiah and Amos, the proper attitude is to delight to do YHWH's Sabbaths and New moons, not to supposedly fulfill them some other way...working and doing business and our own ideas of fulfillment.
You wrote: "Another one, packaged up just for you, Bo: please respond to this:
Joshua 1:13
"Remember the word which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, saying, 'The Lord your God gives you rest, and will give you this land.' (NASB)
1. Joshua connects the land with "rest".
2. Deuteronomy 3:20 - Moses had previously made this same connection.
B. Psalm 95:7-11 - This Psalm gives a warning against hard heartedness and speaks of the "rest" that Moses described as a spiritual rest.
7 ... Today, if you would hear His voice, 8 Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness; 9 "When your fathers tested Me, They tried Me, though they had seen My work. 10 "For forty years I loathed [that] generation, And said they are a people who err in their heart, And they do not know My ways. 11 "Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter into My rest." (NASB)
C. Hebrews 3:1-14 - Quotes Psalm 95:8-11 and speaks of the danger of not entering "rest" as the danger of falling away from Christ. Here Christ fulfills the "rest" originally given in the land. Hebrews 4 continues to speak of the fundamental promises to Israel as fulfilled in Jesus Christ and points to faith in Him as the means of receiving the Sabbath rest.
D. Matthew 11:28 - Promises true "rest" in Christ.
jh"
The obvious problem with all the above is that the word rest is an entirely different word than Shabbat or the kind of rest that is to be done on Shabbat. The Hebrew word used in your passages above is about a "resting place/a place to settle down" not about ceasing from our labor and work.
Once the people got to their "resting place" they were still commanded to rest every Shabbat. You have used two totally different words and concepts and tried to equate them. This is one of the main reasons that I cannot accept you "proof" that Y'shua is our Sabbath rest.
You Idea is like saying hamburger is the same as potting soil because both the dirt and the meat is ground. Two different grounds...two different rests.
You wrote: "Bo, to answer most of your questions, most imply arguments from silence, which doesn't really help: No, nothing in the text indicate any of it. The only clues I have in the text is that they broke bread and Paul preached. That is enough. Could I be wrong? sure. Could you? yes."
Why can you not answer simple questions? Here are a few:
Concerning Acts 20:
Jeff, do you know when the feast of unleavened bread is this year? or was last year? or the year before? Would verse 6 mean much to most modern Christians? Since Paul was in the Roman empire visiting a "Gentile" church and Luke was writing to Theophilus why didn't Luke tell us the name of the Roman month and day of it? Why did Paul tell the Corinthians to keep the feast of unleavened bread? Why did he say that he was going to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost in 1 Corinthians? Why are the time references in the NT all in relation to Sabbath and the Biblical feast days and not according to the Roman calendar?
Do you think that these people thought that the first day of the week started at evening? Why didn't they call this day "The Lord's Day"? Why is every reference to the first day of the week during the count to Pentecost? Why does`the literal translation of the phrase really say "one of (the) weeks" instead of first day of the week? Why in the NT is this phrase always used during the feast of weeks (Pentecost) count? Do you think that Paul preached from morning until midnight? Or just noon till midnight? What time of day did they break the bread?
What can one passage of scripture that literally says "one of weeks" prove about us not needing to keep the Sabbath and that we should keep Sunday? Where is the command in scripture to keep Sunday as the Christian day of worship or to keep it instead of or as a Sabbath?
These are not arguments from silence. They are questions.
Shannon: You have me curious, Are Paul's writings in the NT equally inspired from God to you at the Torah? Is one superior or more valid in your presuppostion? jeffh
I guess we can just spiritualize away the other 9 of the 10 commandments and the rest of YHWH's law. Never mind the physical because it has all been fulfilled.
No need to remain faithful to our spouses, because it is really about being loyal to heavenly bridegroom. No need to not steal, because it is really about treasure in heaven. No need to refrain from idolatry because it is really about...what? No need to honor our earthly parents because it is really about honoring YHWH.
Never mind that it would dishonor YHWH to dishonor our parents. Never mind that not keeping Sabbath shows our disloyalty to our Creator. We are free. Free to sin. Lets all rejoice and be glad because the law has been fulfilled.
Do not worry about incest and rape. Do not worry about sodomy. Do not worry about witchcraft and fortune telling. Messiah fulfilled it all. Put statues of Buddha and the Easter bunny in your yard.
Do not pay your debts...run those credit card balances up and just file bankruptcy. Ain't grace great?
Sorry, Jeff. Can't go your way. Please answer my questions if you have answers.
What are you going to do about this huge problem in your theology?
The obvious problem with all your thoughts about the temple (resting place) is that the word rest is an entirely different word than Shabbat or the kind of rest that is to be done on Shabbat. The Hebrew word used in your passages above is about a "resting place/a place to settle down" not about ceasing from our labor and work.
Once the people got to their "resting place" they were still commanded to rest every Shabbat. You have used two totally different words and concepts and tried to equate them. This is one of the main reasons that I cannot accept you "proof" that Y'shua is our Sabbath rest.
You Idea is like saying hamburger is the same as potting soil because both the dirt and the meat is ground. Two different grounds...two different rests.
Bo, your first response reveals quite abit about you and your approach to discussing theology and sharpening iron. I honestly thought you were different than the typical Hebrew Torah person I've met. I actually thought you were assuming the best in others. . Sorry to find out, differently.
On your second post, there is no huge problem in my theology. There may be in your thinking about my theology, but you are not considering context and semantic range in your interpretation of the Sabbath.
That is why, at the beginning, I thought it would be a good idea to start somewhere other than Sabbath. Please allow me time to answer your many questions. This is important to me, but I still have many other obligations to attend to. In Christ, jeffh
Please do not answer me. The conversation is fruitless. If we cannot agree about the 10 commandments, we will not agree about much else. You will not budge and I will not budge.
I have attempted multiple times to discuss things with you. You have been coy and have not shown that you want to discuss it. You have said that your mind is not made up, but you refuse to budge even when your logic and ideas are shown to be faulty.
Now I am sterotyped into the typical Hebrew Torah person category. Allow me to speak like one of them then.
I used a bit of sarcasm to show you your faulty version of fulfill. Why is it that the only things that your logic works on is Sabbath, feast days and food? Why can't we go around naked? Surely the laws about clothing have been fulfilled. Messiah wore just the right type to fulfill the prophesy in Psalms about them.
If Messiah fulfilled everything by the time He had resurrected why was there still a fulfillment of Shavuot (Pentecost) that His disciples were to wait in Jerusalem for? If He had fulfilled the dietary laws, why did Peter not know about it 10 years later in Acts 10? 10 years is a long time. Your version of fulfill is not consistent nor is it biblical.
There is no way that you logic for "Messiah fulfilled Sabbath" or that "He is our Sabbath rest" can be backed up in scripture. We are Sabbath breakers if we do not keep it the way the scripture says to. All of your spiritualizing does is give you an excuse to not keep it. It sounds exactly like what the Pharisees did.
Mark 7 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
You are doing the same thing as the "corban" ruling. You have come up with a doctrine that makes the commandment of YHWH of none effect. How is that not honoring with the lips but being disobedient...proving that the heart is far from Him? Our works prove us whether we will walk in His laws or not. Sabbath is the proving ground.
It is not I that is not considering the semantic range. I have demonstrated your error. MY interpretation of Sabbath is not an interpretation. It is what is simply and straightforwardly stated in scripture.
You still have time. You are not dead yet. You need to stop deceiving yourself and start being a doer of the word. The problem is that if you start doing and teaching others to do it, you will likely loose your job. You might loose your wife. The cost is great. Choose you this day who you will serve.
My goal is not to convince you. My goal is what this site states, "to sharpen iron" - both mine and yours. I think that is being done. I think this is very fruitful. I'd like to respond and to continue. I don't think it is too much to ask that we "assume the best" of each other's attempts to do theology.
That each of us is trying to exegete as best we can.
If the expectation is for someone to budge, then yes, back out. I don't expect that. It would be nice, but there are many better reasons for me in debating from two differing camps.
Other than the post from MacArthur, I've given you my own work, which is still in progress.
As far as your claim that I am using two different words, ok. Which two? Because Josh 1:13, Psalm 95 are not different. Also, Hebrews 3 is a direct quote, so that is not different. And yes, Matthew 11:29 is a different word, but that is because it is a totally different language. It is Greek, the OT is Hebrew (I know you know that, I am not being sarcastic).
Finally, my theology propels me to keep going. By way of confession and forgiveness, to you I apologize for "categorizing" you as typical.
Not that you have to, but I think you do owe me one also.
This leads me to a question. In the theological camp you are from, is there much about confession and forgiveness, other that coming to Christ the first time? Again, serious question. I have not seen any. Not that there isn't, I just haven't seen it.
It is not more "loving" to leave a brother in error for fear of offending him.
Bo and I "camp" together. I will answer for our "camp": Yes, we believe in confession of sin besides just at salvation. I don't judge that Bo has sinned against you.
Orrin, Bo, Jeff and all, let's move forward. Once again I am reminded of a story. A certain farmer had a severe gambling problem. Everyone including his pastor knew of it. Many had talked to him but to no avail. One day the preacher decided to address gambling from the pulpit just for this man. He preached it straight. After the service the man shook the preachers hand and said, "Boy, you really told them today." A few weeks later the preacher decided to try again on a Sunday night when there were only a handful of people in attendance. At the close of the service once again the man shook the preacher's hand vigorously and said, "That was great. You really told them tonight." A few weeks later there was a very bad blizzard on a Wednesday and the only person in attendance at church that evening besides the pastor was this old farmer. The preacher knew that this was the opportunity he had been looking for. He really laid it on the line and preached it straight about the evils of gambling. At the close of the service the man shook the preacher's hand and said, "Boy, you sure would have told them if they had been here tonight, preacher."
Sometimes as we filter things through our presuppostions it is hard for us to see what to others is very clear. We are getting nowhere just recycling the same arguments. Let's hear from some of you other onlookers out there who are following this blog but as yet have not weighed in. This is a good opportunity for you to sharpen your mind and understanding of YHWH's word through digging deep to support your beliefs. Sometimes as I search I find support and sometimes I find a need to change my deeply held positions. Praise YHWH for His word which is everlasting and sharper than any two edged sword. I am really enjoying this exchange. It makes me think of what David said "Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee."
I have asked so many questions that remain unanswered. Maybe you do not read all of my posts. I repost them once and sometimes twice.
Your theology on rest/sabbath is using two different categories of words and concepts and equating them.
5117 נוח nuwach noo’ akh
1) to rest 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to rest, settle down and remain 1a2) to repose, have rest, be quiet 1b) (Hiph) 1b1) to cause to rest, give rest to, make quiet 1b2) to cause to rest, cause to alight, set down 1b3) to lay or set down, deposit, let lie, place
The above word used in Josh.1:13; Deut. 3:20 and have the meaning of a place to settle or dwell.
4496 מנוחה m@nuwchah men-oo-khaw’ or מנחה m@nuchah men-oo-khaw’
1) resting place, rest 1a) resting place 1b) rest, quietness
The above word is used in Psa. 95:11; Isa. 66:1 and is a related word to 5117. Both Hebrew words are speaking of a resting place not a ceasing from labor.
07673 שׁבת shabath shaw-bath’
1) to cease, desist, rest 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to cease 1a2) to rest, desist (from labour)
7676 שׁבת shabbath shab-bawth’
1) Sabbath 1a) sabbath 1b) day of atonement 1c) sabbath year 1d) week
7677 שׁבתון shabbathown shab-baw-thone’
1) Sabbath observance, sabbatism 1a) of weekly sabbath 1b) day of atonement 1c) sabbatical year 1d) of Feast of Trumpets 1e) of the 1st and last days of the Feast of Tabernacles
The related words above are speaking of ceasing from labor or work. The word for Sabbath comes from the word that means to cease from labor. This concept is not the same as the passages that you quoted about the promised land or temple.
Messiah will be our temple in the new heavens and earth. He is not our Sabbath. We are His temple now. We are not His Sabbath. The context in the passages above should be enough for us to see that there is a difference between a Sabbath rest and dwelling place. I will repost what I said before so that you can see the connections.
The obvious problem with all your thoughts about the temple (resting place) is that the word rest is an entirely different word than Shabbat or the kind of rest that is to be done on Shabbat. The Hebrew word used in your passages above is about a "resting place/a place to settle down" not about ceasing from our labor and work.
Once the people got to their "resting place" they were still commanded to rest every Shabbat. You have used two totally different words and concepts and tried to equate them. This is one of the main reasons that I cannot accept you "proof" that Y'shua is our Sabbath rest.
You Idea is like saying hamburger is the same as potting soil because both the dirt and the meat is ground. Two different grounds...two different rests.
You wrote: " C. Hebrews 3:1-14 - Quotes Psalm 95:8-11 and speaks of the danger of not entering "rest" as the danger of falling away from Christ. Here Christ fulfills the "rest" originally given in the land. Hebrews 4 continues to speak of the fundamental promises to Israel as fulfilled in Jesus Christ and points to faith in Him as the means of receiving the Sabbath rest."
Hebrews does not point to receiving a Sabbath rest by believing in Messiah. It speaks of laboring to enter into a promised land rest. (Scripture speaks over and over about dwelling in Messiah.) Making sure that we do not fall in same manner that those that came before us did by unbelief and disobedience.
The book of Hebrews was written just before Jerusalem was sacked. It was preparing the Jewish believers in Messiah for the changes that would come into their lives. No temple or Levitical priesthood would be available in the very near future. They would be expelled from the physical promised land.
I see Hebrews 4:9 as stating that even though there are going to be a lot of changes, Sabbath keeping (Sabbatismos) will remain/continue.
And it did according to the earliest Church Fathers' writings. The assemblies in Asia continued to keep the Sabbath and the feasts and were called into question by the bishop of Rome. Their answer was that they would continue to keep Passover like the Apostle John taught Polycarp (his disciple) and the rest of their ancestors. All the Churches in Asia were almost excommunicated because of this stand.
You wrote: "D. Matthew 11:28 - Promises true "rest" in Christ."
Matthew 11 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. 1 ¶ At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
The connection between Messiah giving rest/light burdens and the Scribes and Pharisees laying heavy burdens upon men is seen in the above context. Y'shua is the Master of the Sabbath. The additional rules and laws that the religious leaders laid on people was the burden. Pure Torah is not a burden according to the scripture. It is not too difficult for us, if it is in our hearts.
Deuteronomy 30 10 if thou shalt obey the voice of the YHWH thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto YHWH thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul. 11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
The only other place in scripture that the phrase "rest for you souls" is found is here:
Jeremiah 6 16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
I think that this is what Y'shua was quoting in Matthew. The old paths are pure Torah without all the manmade additions. It is the way we were designed to walk. If we allow YHWH to write His commandments on our hearts, we will want to keep them.
Y'shua is the Lord of the Sabbath. He told us what to do. No man has any right to add to or take away from those instructions.
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Rom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Deut 30 : 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
I hear it this way: The Sabbath has been left for the people of YHWH. NOT the Sabbath has been forsaken by the people of YHWH. Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. It looks like we menookhaw in a katapausis after we Ceased from work. This doesn't seem to be Shabbat.(?!)
Also, in 4:10, it is “God”. That must point to the Creation as the example.
The word in Hebrews 4:9 is the actual Hebrew word for Shabbat translit into Greek, Latin, Spanish,English,Swahili. What ever language it is translated into now or in the future--- in the "original" it says sabbatismos, rather than κατάπαυσις as in Heb 4:10 katapausis= rest,G2663 = reposing, abode or place of rest.
By way of “presupposition” , Look what the Strongs says on Esword.
G4520 σαββατισμός = sabbatismos sab-bat-is-mos' From a derivative of G4521; a “sabbatism”, that is, (figuratively) the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven): - rest.
It “presupposes” just what Christianity believes. , (figuratively); of Christianity; type of heaven…
Compare to G2663 κατάπαυσις katapausis kat-ap'-ow-sis From G2664; reposing down, that is, (by Hebraism) abode: - rest.
Another Presupp! Only Hebrew this time.
I think this is rampant in “theology” = the study of God-stuff
This is not my response to anything in particular. I am bringing this up out of my own reading. But this does relate to the posted topic.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Focus on v 19. What will be taken away? #1 part out of the book; #2 out of the holy city; #3 from the things which are written in this book.
Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
The "book".
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
"Reward"
Dan 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
"Great in the Kingdom"
There is a lot of the NT herein.
This is "devotional" in nature. I am not equipped in prophecy. And I know it!
Bo, apology accepted. I have a very full week, so if I am not blogging, please know that it is NOT a cut and run. - I will not be able to physically go through all of these questions. At least not on a blog format as they are way to many and my blogs would be unrealistically long. But, I will TRY to check your exegetical work with someone more qualified to discern it. I know a few people who can handle Hebrew and Greek. One teaches Hebrew. I hope I can print these off. I will also try to read that website you mentioned. Please send it again. I would also recommend a book to you (I have not read it yet), since I wanted this posting to be my own work. It is by DA Carson on the "Sabbath". God bless, jeffh
Bo, one more question that is haunting me (I suspect etymological errors in your exegesis, but I could be wrong)
When you read the Greek of the NT writings, do you filter them through a Hebrew lens?
I am not saying that is bad, necessarily, but it will really help me understand how you are getting to some of your conclusions. I know this blog could (and should) move on beyond Sabbath topics, but I would be very interested in continuing with you, if you are interested by email. Mike, or others as well. So I don't clog up this blog anymore. jeffhoverson@yahoo.com YHWH bless, jeffh
I do not know if I read the NT through a Hebrew lens. I just try to get all I can out of a passage by comparing as much scripture, Hebrew and Greek, as possible. The more I know Torah and the Prophets and the psalms, the easier the book of Hebrews is to understand.
Ok, Bo or others. By the way, I am enjoying the one on one by email from one. (Bo, I have started reading that site you posted, thank you.)
I have a question for this group (is it fair to say Torah Observers for sake of simplicity - or something other? Doesn't matter to me)
Qualifier: I am not entering this post for the purpose of "convincing". I have a real question and want to be sure I understand your theology correctly, ok?
HERE IT IS: Are you saying that the food in 1 Cor 8:8 is not the unclean / clean food of the Torah laws;
that the freedom to eat and drink whatever, whether Jew or Greek in 1 Cor 10:31-32 is not the eat and drink of the Torah laws;
that the meat in Rom 14:6 is not the meat of the Torah laws;
that the unclean food of Mark 7:2 is not the unclean of Torah laws;
that the unclean that goes in a man in Mark 7:15-19 is not the unclean of the Torah laws;
that the days of Rom 14: 5 are not the days of the Torah laws;
that the written code in Col 2:14 is not relative to Torah laws;
that the eat or drink in Col 2:16 is not the eat of Torah laws;
that the New Moon celebration or Sabbath day of Col 2:16-17 are not the Torah laws;
that the rest in Heb 3-4 is not Jesus Christ, but a day of the week? And as far as Galatians, there are so many, suffice it to say, "the whole book".
this post is holding off on the Book of Acts for now, since it is a mix of Jews and Greeks and invites more complexity than I am interested in first.
I think you get the question. Anyhow, I am not looking for a fight or even trying to convince.
But either these ARE part of the Torah laws OR not OR I am missing something. Could be my brain, ha ha
I would invite a response that can clarify for me whether Paul is wrong or whether I am reading Paul wrong. IF THESE ARE NOT TORAH, THAN PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THEY ARE. I WOULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I am looking for people who want to inform, not necessarily convince, though you are welcome either way.
For longer explanations, I would prefer emailing me at jeffhoverson@yahoo.com I respect Orrin's blog here and don't want to spiral this in a direction he did not intend for this blog to go.
Finally, I know there are other verses pointing the other way, but if we could just answer these first, I would appreciate it. I am willing to go to other verses later, but really would like to know about the aforementioned ones first. Yes or No on those please.
The three most important things to consider when buying real estate is location, location and location. With scripture it is context, context and context.
1 Cor. 8:8 is in the context of food offered to idols. It is not dealing with what animals are considered food by YHWH. 1 Cor. 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
1 Cor 10:31-32 is about food offered to idols again. If we do not know if it is offered to idols, we may eat the food. We should not eat it if someone tells us that it has been offered to idols. Nothing here about YHWH's clean and unclean food laws. 1 Cor. 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:
Rom 14:6 is about eating animal flesh or only vegetables. Rom. 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Mark 7:2 is dealing with rabbinical rulings as there is nothing in Torah about washing our hands before we eat. The next verse tells us where this rule came from. Mark 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, HOLDING THE TRADITION OF THE ELDERS.
Mark 7:15-19 The Jewish people were not eating unclean animals. It was not called food by them or Messiah. Mark 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) All foods are clean and we do not need to wash our hands before we eat. Our dirty hands do not make the food we eat unclean. Disobedience of any sort does make us unclean. Eating unclean animals is disobedience. It is lusting for something that YHWH has not approved of. It is covetousness. Lust/covetousness makes us unclean because it comes from our hearts.(Mark 7:22)
Romans 14:5 is dealing with days that we put importance upon. Things like national holidays and birthdays and what days we have set aside to fast and pray, etc. The days that YHWH has commanded us to keep holy are days that He esteems. We have no right to disobey Him or unesteem His days. There is a difference between a day that we place importance upon and a holy day declared by YHWH. Yes, we should esteem the days that YHWH set apart as holy. The context does not discuss YHWH's holy days. Just peoples personal preferences in what they like to eat and what days they set aside for feasting or fasting or not either.
Col 2:14 is speaking about the record of our transgression of Torah and not about Torah being taken away.
Let’s look at verses 11 through 14.
Colossians 2 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
These verses are sandwiched between the “principalities and powers” verses. The first of those two verses lets us know that Y’shua is the head of all authorities. The second is speaking specifically about His triumph over the religious authorities in the realm of Judaism and that He openly proved their rulings to be manmade traditions of men that turn from the truth. Where do we stand in all of this? We are complete in Him. His wisdom and knowledge is everything we need to know.
In verse eleven we are told about our spiritual circumcision. As Paul says, “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law, But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Rom. 2:26-27, 29) Our circumcised hearts want to do what YHWH asks of us. We were dead because we were not in covenant with YHWH (uncircumcision of our flesh) and because our transgressions of His law (sins). With this new heart, we submit to the act of baptism, and by so doing we announce our loyalty to Messiah and YHWH. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.” (1 Pet. 3:21-22) Peter gives a second witness to the idea that our baptism puts us in a place where our allegiance is directly to the Head of all principality and power. This is why verse 16 of Colossians 2 says that we are to let no man judge us. “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” (1 Cor. 7:23)
Now, our hearts being purified by faith and with our desire to please YHWH, we are alive because of the forgiveness of our trespasses. Verse fourteen tells us, in legal terms, how this forgiveness was accomplished. The phrase, “handwriting of ordinances” in the Greek world of Paul’s day was the equivalent of an IOU. This term was also used in the court system for the official written charges against the defendant. This term was not used to mean the “body of law” or “legal requirements.”
Literally, our “certificate of debt” (whether to a creditor or the community) was canceled…”blotted out.” All the charges against us and our debt to YHWH, because of our sins, were nailed to the execution stake when Y’shua took our guilt upon Himself.
YHWH’s law was not “nailed to the cross” as some modern, Christian principalities and powers (religious leaders) emphatically state. It was the record of our transgressions of His law that were dealt with. Messiah did not forgive us our trespasses by doing away with the law, as that would be the same as making sin not be sin anymore. And we know that the very same things that were wrong before we came to faith are still wrong. If we read verse 14 in such a way as to nullify YHWH’s perfect law, we end up doing the same thing that the Jewish principalities and powers (religious leaders) were doing by their interpretation of the law. “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:13) We also contradict Y’shua’s direct statement: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Mat. 5:17)
Col. 2:16-17 are speaking of YHWH's instructions. We are to let no man judge us concerning us reverencing them. The scripture is the only rule of faith and practice. The passage does not say let no man judge you for not keeping them. We are to obey the scripture and no man has any right to add to or take away from what the scripture says about how and when to keep them.
15 And having spoiled principalities (Strong’s #746) and powers (Strong’s #1849), he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
What is the “therefore” there for in verse 16? It is showing that the men that were in leadership (principalities and powers), having been shown to be insubordinate and that were subsequently unseated, do not have any authority to rule in matters of scriptural observance. (Mat.21:23-46) We are warned again to “Let no man judge” us BECAUSE of what Y’shua did to prove the absurdity of the religious leaders’ ideas of what constituted obedience in these areas. YHWH’s scriptural observances are not to be contaminated or replaced by man’s worldly principles, traditions and philosophies. We are to adhere to the “wisdom and knowledge” of Messiah and YHWH.
The Jewish “principalities and powers” had added many commandments of men to the “knowledge of YHWH.” Y’shua had made these authorities look like fools in reprimanding them about their ideas… especially concerning food and drink, and Sabbaths…not to mention many other topics. He truly “triumphed over them” in a very public and humiliating way in these confrontations. Thus we read, “…neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.” (Mat.22:46) Though He rebuked the “principalities and powers” concerning their manmade rules, He continued to keep Torah perfectly and He did not teach His disciples to do anything differently than He was doing. He sanctified Himself by keeping YHWH’s commandments and expected this lifestyle, void of manmade additions, to be the sanctification of His disciples and the sanctification of those that would believe through their word. (John 17:17-20) He did not come to make the law void. (Mat. 5:17-19) He did not die an agonizing death in our place because of our transgressions of YHWH’s perfect law, just to allow us to continue in transgression of YHWH’s instructions. He came to give us a new start, a new spirit, a new heart, along with the ability to obey YHWH.
We also should not to listen to the manmade ideas of modern religious, even Christian, men in regard to how to, or whether to, keep YHWH’s feasts, new moons and Sabbaths...which happen to be part of YHWH’s perfect Torah...His oracles…His basic principles/rudiments. We are to cast down the arguments/imaginations of men that are contrary to the straight forward commands of scripture. When we submit to man’s ideas, instead of to the teaching of scripture, we are beguiled of our reward for obedience. So the exhortation stands…we are not to be intimidated into adhering to man’s additions to or subtractions from YHWH’s commandments. (Deut. 4:2; 12:32) “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey…” (Rom. 6:16) Basically, we serve, and are thus sanctified (set apart) to the one whose ideas we accept and practice. Our loyalties reveal to us our hearts’ secrets that might otherwise go unnoticed because of our hearts’ deceitful ways. (Jer. 17:9) “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” (1 Cor. 7:23)
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
The Greek behind this verse has some interesting nuances. First, the holy days and Sabbaths to which this verse refers ARE shadows. It does not say “were shadows” as if these things are to be relegated to the past. It does not say, “These things are mere shadows” or “are only shadows.” Second, there is no “is” in the Greek in this verse. This is shown by it being in italics in the KJV. Paul is speaking of “the body of Messiah,” just as this phrase is translated throughout the rest of scripture. He is not saying that “the substance (or reality) is of (or belongs to) Christ.” The Greek word for “body” simply and only means “body” not “substance” or “reality.” Third, the word “but” is a Greek word that can as easily be translated “and.” This becomes mandatory when the translators’ added “is” is removed. Some translators, translating in a way that supports their preconceived ideas, take unjustified liberties when rendering this verse. The KJV comes the closest to the Greek, but still has the two small problems listed above. A literal translation would read, “Which are a shadow of things to come and the body of Messiah.”
So, the holy days and Sabbaths are prophetic celebrations of future encounters of YHWH with the body of Messiah. They are rehearsals of our betrothal and wedding to Messiah and our anniversaries, so to speak. They are shadows of us, as Messiah’s body, and what will happen to us or with us in the future. We know from other passages in scripture that the celebrations of YHWH are commemorations of His dealings with His people in the past, but Paul gives us this second reason to “respect” or keep these holy days. There is a consistent pattern in the storyline of scripture that demonstrates how YHWH shows up on these exact days to interact with His chosen people…His bride…His body. Y’shua was sacrificed on Passover, ascended as the First Fruits from the dead on the exact holy day, and poured His Spirit out on Pentecost. The fall feast days are also pictures of Messiah’s redemptive work. Though these days commemorate other past interactions, we evidently, according to Paul, still have future fulfillments to look forward to and to celebrate.
The Jewish “principalities and powers” had added many traditions and commandments to the pure word of YHWH concerning the celebration of these set apart/holy days of YHWH. This may well be the reason that their Messiah and His fulfillment of these days were obscured from their sight. They had made them into Jewish holidays instead of keeping them as YHWH’s holy days. This would be a good reason not to let men and their ideas be our guide/judge of how to “respect” these days. When we are true to the scriptures regarding these days, we maintain them in the holy status that they were designed to hold. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” (Exod. 20:8) “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.” (Lev. 23:2)
“And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mat. 22:1-14) It would not be good to miss out on our rehearsal dinners, so to speak, and not have our wedding garments ready to go. Let’s not be too busy with our own things to celebrate with our King and keep our anniversary dates with Him. Let’s not be beguiled of our reward.
Jeff, I'll take a stab at answering your question.
1Cor. 8:8 This refers to meat offered to idols. From Paul's understanding, what was considered unclean in the Torah would not have even been on the radar as it did not meet the definition of meat.
1Cor. 10:31-32 Same as above
Mark 7:2 Jesus was referring to the traditional laws of the Jews, not the Torah.
Mark 7:15-19 Had Jesus told them that it was okay to eat pork they would have crucified him right there. They were trying hard to find anything they could to accuse him of. If he would have said that the law of Moses was done away with he not only would have been put to death earlier, but he would not have perfectly fulfilled the law and as such could not have been the perfect lamb without spot or wrinkle.
Col 2:14 Jeff, do you really think that beastiality was wrong in the Torah but, Thank God, he removed that ordinance so I could do what I wanted? He took our sentence of "death" for us.
Col 2:16 They lived in a world which had a god for everything (think of Pauls sermon on Mars Hill) and holydays for various gods. THis is not Paul changing what YHWH said was to be observed in perpetuity.
Concerning rest, I don't know if you are reading what Bo and Mike have written or not, but I think your question has been well answered unless you just choose not to hear.
I would like to remind everyone of the original purpose of this blog:
As we seek to sharpen each other , 2 Timothy 3:16 says," All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".
Rev. 22 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
This is to great of a promise to take a chance with trying to get God to see it my way.
All, also I would like the exchanges which are prompted by this blog to take place on the blog as it seems almost like Proverbs 16:28 "and a whisperer separates the best of friends" when it moves off into personal emails. Be ready to offer a defense of your understanding of scripture, but don't just keep asking the same question over and over like maybe the answer will change. What seems to be the problem is seminary teaching that is held as inviolable. May God's word never be held hostage to man's private interpretation.
Galatians is about the difference between trying to be justified by keeping the law or by faith in Y'shua. Galatians is not saying to not do what Torah says to do. It is saying that it is impossible to be justified by keeping the law. It is not saying that the law is wrong or that it tells us things that we should not do. The law is not against YHWH's promises. We needed a savior because we had broken the Torah. Torah tells us what is right to do.
Galatians 2 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 5 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
The ones that have fallen from grace are the ones that are trusting in their works for justification. The ones that keep torah because they are justified by faith in Messiah are have not fallen from grace. There is no need of grace if the law is not in effect. Where there is no law, there is no sin.
Thank you, I have much to study now. I appreciate that very much. I hope to understand your position better.
Bo, my apologies on the weak answers I have given. For now, most of them that asked if I knew things. The answer is no, I don't know those answers. Again, I hope to return soon, but it may also be awhile. God bless, jeffh
Bo, have read some (not all 10 pages yet - remember, I am SLOW)
Great points on Context, context, context - you and I must have went to the same Seminary (Hermenuetics 101) - ha kidding
You are correct on Mark 7:2. On Mark 7:15-22, you said pork is not considered food. Could you help me with a scripture on that? I am curious, because why would they eat it, then if it wasn't food?
Bo, I got through your read on Col 2:17. I like what you have to say about it saying are, not was. That is helpful for me.
One correction, though. You said the Greek does not have "is" in this verse. It does. Here it is: 17α εστιν σκια των μελλοντων το δε σωμα του χριστου
Estin is there. At least in four Greek manuscripts I checked. But, do you mean another part of the verse? Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying here.
The Jewish people call anything that is not specified as food by YHWH in Torah, trief...not edible...not food.
The passage in Mark is written by and about Jews. The Torah gives the specifics of what is and is not food. Mark says, "by this he declared all food clean" in reference to eating without going through the Pharisaic ritual of using a 2 handled cup to wash our hands with before eating. Mark would not include swine, shark and salamanders in his definition of food.
Leviticus 11 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. 4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you. 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you. 13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 15 Every raven after his kind; 16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. 20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. 21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; 22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. 23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. 24 And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even. 25 And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even. 26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean. 27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even. 28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you. 29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind, 30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole. 31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
17α εστιν σκια των μελλοντων το δε σωμα του χριστου
I was saying that there is no "is" in the last part that some translators render "the body (is) of Christ." The phrase "σωμα του χριστου" should be translated like it is throughout the New Testament, "body (no "is") of Christ." The passage is not saying that the festivals are shadows but the reality is Messiah. It is saying that the festivals are shadows of things to come and they are shadows of the body of Messiah. They are telling a story about us and our future as it pertains to YHWH's redemption plan.
There are several uses of this word I would point to where the "is" is used as if to say this "represents".... Matt 5:34,35;6:21;11:14,16;12:50
No, Y'shua's actual blood and flesh are not consumed in the Passover feast/communion. The elements represent his shed blood and body. It is a huge violation of Torah to eat human flesh, not split hooves or cud chewing.
This will keep Jews from ever believing in Him. He would never have done that - Presupp.
Jeff and I talked about this in an email. What do the rest of you think? Is uncleanness to be understood as being in a state of sin? If I am unclean, what does that mean? How many ways are there to get unclean? Are paths to uncleanness all sinful?
Just because you are unclean does not mean you are in sin. A woman on her period is unclean but its not a sin. But sometimes sin does lead to being unclean. Like eating something that's not kosher. Its a sin and you become unclean.
God changed it after the flood and there was no doubt because "HE" said it. To read some different meaning into what one of the NT writers (not YHWH) wrote reflects a misunderstanding of scripture.
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Where did the knowledge they were accountable for come from? In the next couple for verses Cain is told to "do well" and he would be accepted. He was to change and conform to something that is not written in the scriptures. The rules are in force but not written. That is puzzling(?)
It would seem that man had eaten animals from shortly after being expelled from the garden of Eden, because we find Abel presenting a firstling offering. We know from torah that firstling offerings are to be eaten by the owner with a portion going to the priest, which in this case was YHWH. (Gen. 4:4)
We also see that Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals, as he is charged with collecting 2 pairs of unclean ones and 7 pairs of clean ones. The classification of clean and unclean is used in reference to the animal flesh that we are allowed to eat. (Gen. 7:2)
There is no statement in the "New Testament" that would undo the clean and unclean laws concerning animal flesh. If Y'shua had taught his disciples that it was permitted to eat swine or vultures or slugs, the apostles appear to be unaware of it as late as Acts chapter 10, which is about 10 years after Messiah's resurrection. This is where we find Peter stating that he had never eaten anything unclean...and he obviously thought that it would be wrong to do so.
Acts 10 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate, 28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
The vision that Peter had shook him up. He was perplexed precisely because he knew that it would be wrong to eat an unclean animal. The interpretation of his vision was that he should not automatically presume a gentile to be unclean. There is no record of Peter of any other believer eating unclean animal flesh in the "New Testament." YHWH is "no respecter of persons." Those that fear Him (believe in Him) and work righteousness (Defined in Torah) will be accepted by Him...Jew or Gentile.
Revelation 18 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
In Revelation we find that there are still unclean animals according to YHWH. If He had made the unclean to be clean, He would not continue to call them unclean, as that would be doing what He told Peter not to do if the interpretation of Peter's vision was really in reference to unclean animals being cleansed.
It is obvious by Peter's actions that neither the teaching of Y'shua or the Holy Spirit declared unclean animals to be clean. We must take the interpretation given by YHWH to be what the vision was supposed to convey. Namely, that we are not to presume any man to be unclean.
To use Peter's vision to prove that YHWH has now permitted the eating of unclean animal flesh is the same as using the dream that the chief baker had to prove that we should all wear baskets with pastries in them as hats so that birds will not starve. (Gen.40:16-19) Would we try to prove that since skinny cows can eat fat cows without gaining weight, we should consider well marbled beef to be zero calories. (Gen. 41)
Let's just accept the interpretations that YHWH has been so kind to include in the scriptures.
Hello everyone, especially Bo and Barrett, and thanks for sending me the link, Barrett. This is your housemate from Pisgat Ziev, and am new to the blog.
I finally got around to reading through this thread last night, and have enjoyed the discussion. I think this could become a great tool for us to encourage, sharpen, and strengthen us who love YHWH's instructions, but could just as easily become a place where some will continue to question us and we just end up arguing, so I pray it is the former.
I have a question for those of you who truly desire to guard Torah. I was wondering what your thoughts are on the role and need of circumcision today? In Rom 2:25,26 Shaul says;
'For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?'
Since we all have broken Torah, does this imply circumcision is of no value to us? If someone that is not circumcised guards Torah as best he can, does he not need to 'worry' about circumcision? Seems no one could eat the Passover meal that wasn't circumcised, and he could not enter the temple either; but now that their isn't a temple, does it matter? And some say that only blood Jewish people need to be circumcised, but those who can't prove a blood tie that are grafted in don't need to be??? Shaul didn't compel Titus to be circumcised, but was that for that specific situation for a time while those of the 'circumcision' were there trying to convince the people of the need to be circumcised to be saved and Shaul didn't want to give some the impression that he was doing the same? What are your thoughts?
I think that the commandment of circumcision is just as valid today as it was in Avraham's day, Moshe's day and Yeshua's day.
What Shaul is addressing is people who boast in keeping the Torah. Rom 2:23 What he is saying is how can you judge someone and condemn them to Hell for not getting circumcised(which is a sin)when you yourself break the Torah(sin).
As you pointed out no one could eat the Passover(What most Christians call the Lord's Supper) without being circumcised. There was not a Temple in our father Avraham's day, but still YHWH insisted that all our males be circumcised. The people that say it only applies to Jews by blood must have never read Gen 17:12-13. If even a slave of the house of Avraham had to be circumcised. How much more an adopted son?
I think you hit the nail right on the head concerning Titus not being circumcised. I would assume that Titus got circumcised before the next Passover.
I talk about this on the grafted in thread on this blog. If you want to go look at it.
Shabbat Shalom everyone. Thanks for the response Barrett and reminder to read the other posts. I obviously hadn't done that yet. I am almost finished. I'm sorry I tried to rehash an older discussion. I was wondering why no one was saying anything. I've enjoyed the discussions
Your right. We need to pay attention to context. Noach knew more about Torah than people realize. He knew what animals are clean and unclean. Gen 7:2,7:8 He also knew how to build an altar and offer burnt offerings. Gen 8:20 I don't think he would know about the laws of clean and unclean animals and just ignore them. But lets say he did for the sake of discussion. It does not change anything for us, because Moshe gave us the dietary laws. Now people say that the dietary laws were only for Israel. Noach was a Gentile so that's why they did not apply to him. They argue that Gentiles today are the same. If that is true then Gentiles today could marry their sisters or aunts. After all Noach and his descendants were allowed to marry their sisters and aunts. Gen 20:12,Exd 6:20 These unions were not condemned until Sinai. Lev 18:9,18:11-13 Of course according to the logic above this only applies to the Jews. they can not get around it. If a Gentile can eat pork, he can marry his sister. But if a Gentile can not marry his sister, he can not eat pork. Because the body of law that said not to marry your sister also said to the same people not to eat pork. So you see even if you are right that Noach could eat pork, he could also marry his sister. But the Torah condemns both. Why would Lev chapter 18 apply to both Gentile and Jew but Lev chapter 11 only applies to Jews? It does not make any sense!
I would like to add that Herod was not a Jew, but John the baptist upbraided him for marrying his brother's wife. So we see that a Jewish prophet condemned the Torah breaking of a non-Jew.
There is a reason why Jews would not enter Gentile's houses...they assumed that they were sinners, which means law breakers, and did not want to become unclean by eating or associating with them. This rule of theirs is not found in Torah, but tells us how they thought about it. John was a Jew that was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. I think that he judged righteous judgment.
If we can marry our brother's wife or our sister or aunt, we can eat pork. If not, then not.
I is about holiness...without which no man shall see YHWH. (Heb. 12:14)
Leviticus 11 44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
Leviticus 19 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. 3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. 4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. 5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD. 6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
YHWH has brought us out of Egypt and does not want us doing the things that they did. Holiness means that we are different in the ways that YHWH's word describes.
1 Corinthians 16 13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
Bo, aren't there some laws in the Levitical code (I think Lev 18:26) where it is explicitly clear these laws apply to more than just Israel? Other parts we don't see that specific command. jeffh
Good point! I guess that means that a stranger should keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Exd 12:18 In the first [month], on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Exd 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a STRANGER, or born in the land.
That also means that a stranger should observe the Shabbat day!
Exd 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the Shabbat of YHWH thy Elohim: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy STRANGER that [is] within thy gates:
Exd 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the STRANGER, may be refreshed.
A stranger is also required to keep Yom Kippur(Day of Atonement)!
Lev 16:29 And [this] shall be a statute for ever unto you: [that] in the seventh month, on the tenth [day] of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, [whether it be] one of your own country, or a STRANGER that sojourneth among you:
Also the stranger should keep the entire Torah!
Deut 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy STRANGER that [is] within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear YHWH your Elohim, and observe to do ALL the words of this TORAH:
Barret: Agreed, sort of. Passover in Ex 12. Apostle John, Jesus IS the Passover Lamb. That is why John records it on Thursday - Day of Preparation for the Passover. Jesus is crucified. Then, to Matt, Mark, Luke - days are from a different calendar. Historical versus Theological. We do celebrate the Feast through the Lord's supper as oft as we drink of it.
Duet 31:18 - Feast of Booths a foreshadowing of Pentecost. Birth of the church. Holy Spirit comes to Cornelius in Acts APART from circumcision. We no longer need the symbol because the real thing showed up. This is the point of the whole book of Hebrews. No temple needed. Jesus has done ALL of what the Temple did. Handling of sin, sacrifice, atonement, etc. Now for all time. It is finished.
Christ has kept the law. We still follow moral laws because the food laws are for only me that show the distinction which is now unnecessary. No benefit to being a Jew by blood. Only by faith like Cornelius becomes a Jew.
Moral law is different. I cannot make myself more right with God, so keeping this won't do it, but it has much use regarding my neighbor. I have the right God, I don't abuse His Name, and the rest are directed toward my fellowman.
Food laws, etc. are for us, not our neighbor. Ceremonial and food laws change form and moral laws remain. The food is merely the symbol, the day is a symbol, etc., until the real thing showed up. Until the Seed came. Gal 3:19 So, I think we half agree. No law is abolished with my theology, but it is fulfilled.
We are now bound to Christ, not the external action of the law.
Shalom from Mount Gerizim in Israel. Jeff you said: “Duet 31:18 - Feast of Booths a foreshadowing of Pentecost. Birth of the church.” Pentecost = Shavuot , Not Sukkot(Booths). OOPS. You got this one wrong, brother.
Jeff also said: Holy Spirit comes to Cornelius in Acts APART from circumcision. Cornelius was a God-fearer, righteous gentile. Are you sure he was uncirc? What does devout mean in Acts 10:2?
Thanks, Mike: My OT study is rusty. I think Feast of Booths begins 15th day of the Jewish calendar (fall) - is that correct? I should have said, it is Lev. 23:15ff - Feast of weeks 50 days after weekly Sabbath following the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Later fulfillment at Pentecost. Same point of late fulfillment, though. With Cornelius, perhaps an explicit conclusion cannot be drawn either way; I will look further - thanks jeffh
Also: Mike, etc. - Are we in congruence on the following:
there were two Sabbaths between Jesus’ death and resurrection – Mark 16:1 s one on Nisan 15, an annual Sabbath, then Luke 23:56, the women rested on Nisan 17 was the weekly Sabbath; and then, Matthew 28:1 is actually the “first of Sabbaths” Nisan 18 was the annual Sabbath following a seven week period ending at Pentecost.
I may need correction, but I want to be sure we are on the same factual page before I study further. thanks, jeffh
Last one, then I will TRY to stop. Would we be in agreement that Jesus did NOT die on Friday. More likely Thursday on the Jewish Calendar? (Actually, Wednesday on Roman calendar) - I am simply putting pieces together, not trying to argue anything at this point. jeffh
Good morning from Alaska, and some new snow. Mike, its good to here you are at Mount Gerizim. Good view isn't it? Is the whole family there?
Jeff, my understanding is that Yeshua died Wednesday afternoon, prior to the start of Thursday(at sunset). Josheph and Nicodemus were concerned about getting Him off the tree prior to sunset because Shabbat would start then. It was the preparation day before the 'High' Shabbat of Unleavened bread which would start on the 15th of Nissan. That is the first Shabbat. Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:42. I also believe He died quickly, to the surprise of Pilot, because Torah(YHWH's instructions on how to live) states letting someone hang on a tree after sunset would defile the land. Deut. 21:23. That left another weekly Shabbat on Saturday before He rose on Firstfruits. This is the second Shabbat. This allowed the ladies to buy spices on Friday to bring to the tomb, since they couldn't have purchased them on the Shabbats. This timing allows for being in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights, as the accounts state, and were foreshadowed by Jonah. (I also believe He would have rose shortly after sunset on Roman Saturday, or He would have spent 4 nights in the tomb. He did not rise at sunrise Sunday. He was gone when Mary came to the tomb before sunrise. John 20:1)
I really think an issue in this discussion is; what are the Feasts of YHWH, which He says are His Feasts? Lev 23:1. The Hebrew word used for Feast as it is translated in my NKJV, is moed. (mô‛êd From H3259; properly an appointment, that is, a fixed time or season;) So, here we go. Did the chicken or the egg come first? Did YHWH make these times 'appointments' after He did something like Shabbat, Passover, etc. or did He establish these times as 'appointments' and then do certain things on those days? Since we know He chose us before the foundation of the world, Eph 1;4, would it be a stretch to believe He established His 'appointments' before the foundation on the world? Do these 'appointed days' then cease being 'appointments' as soon as YHWH does something on that day, or are they always the 'appointed days'? Ez 45:18-25 describes these 'appointments' during the kingdom reign of Yeshua on what appears to be the same days they were for Moshe. Do we then think they aren't 'appointments' today, and maybe we should at least acknowledge them, instead of pick different days to 'worship' the Lord, such as good Friday, Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, etc. Oh, I guess since the spring feasts have been 'fulfilled' we can change them. Maybe if we studied the 'Old Testament' more, we would understand these things, and might even have a much better understanding of what will happen on YHWH's fall 'appointments' of Trumpets, Atonement, Booths. Maybe we would have a better grip on the prophesies that haven't been fulfilled yet, instead of all the crazy ideas that we see being published out there that are totally divorced from any Scriptural foundation. He declares the end from the beginning, Is 46:10, so I think we need to look to the beginning of His word for our foundation, instead of assuming Paul establishes the foundation.
Barrett, I still plan on getting back to you on the circumcision topic, but haven't gotten my thoughts together in a printable format yet.
I meant Shalom. I need a proof reader for everything I guess.
A quick thought on Cornelius. I don't think it matters if he was circumcised. That isn't what makes us acceptable to YHWH. That is one thing Shaul was addressing.
Actually, Y'shua died on Wednesday according to either calendar, on Passover day. Late in the day as the sun was setting. The new scriptural day started shortly after He was removed from the tree. This new day would have been the first day of unleavened bread which is a rest day. Then the day after this would have been a work day and also the 2nd day of unleavened bread (Friday). Then the weekly Sabbath followed. The next day (Sunday) was the firstfruits offering and the first day on the count of 50 days to get to Shavuot/Pentecost. This first day of the week during the feast of unleavened bread was the day that Y'shua ascended to the Father as the firstfruits from the dead. Y'shua was in the grave exactly 3 days and nights, so he was alive again and out of the grave very shortly before dark when the 1st day of the week would have begun.
So Messiah died on Pesakh/Passover, was dead three full days. Ascended to the Father on habikurim/firstfruits, 50 days later He was taken up to heaven on Shavuot/Pentecost.
1st day of unleavened bread Sabbath Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
They rested a Sabbath then bought spices then prepared the spices then rested another Sabbath.
Regular Sabbath Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
They got to the tomb before the first day of the week, just before nighttime.
Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Early the first day of the week He is seen and doesn't want to be touched until after He ascends to the Father.
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Any other time frame would not have Y'shua in the grave 3 days and nights as He prophesied.
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
I am pretty sure that Mike is in agreement with me on this. Hopefully he will have time to post again.
Bo, Am I missing something? I thought He continued with them 40 days and told them to remain in Jerusalem and wail for the Promise of the Father. Acts 1:1-4. Then He ascended. That wouldn't have been on Shavuot, would it?
Yes, I noticed that we must have been typing at the same time. My beard is getting longer, so I'll have to try the ending:-)}> I enjoy reading your posts.
Are you really saying that Yochanan(John) sacrificed historical accuracy in order to make a theological point! I strongly disagree with you if that is your opinion! I firmly believe all the gospels to be Historically accurate in every way! I believe that Yochanan was above altering history because it made his position look better!
The feast of Sukkot(tabernacles) is a foreshadowing of Yeshua's millennial reign. Not Pentecost. Pentecost was foreshadowed by the feast of Pentecost. Which is an OT Feast. Lev23:15-21 Pentecost is the Greek name for the Feast of Shavuot(Weeks). You say that the Church was born on Pentecost in Acts. That's not true. According to Steven in Acts7:37-38 Moshe was with the Church in the wilderness! That means that the Church could not have been born in NT times. Unless you believe that Steven was altering history to make a theological point as well.
Of course Cornelius received the Ruach HaQodesh(Holy Spirit) before circumcision. But how is that different from OT times? Avraham was chosen, like Cornelius without circumcision. I don't see how that proves that circumcision no longer needs to be observed. And why in the thousand year reign of Yeshua will Gentiles not be allowed to approach the Sanctuary without being circumcised in the flesh? Eze44:9
The Temple was never needed for forgiveness of sins. Hbr 10:4 The Saints of of the OT were saved by the blood of Yeshua as much as we are. So why was it a good idea for them to have sacrifices, but not us? You said "Now for all time. It is finished." Then why do the sacrifices get reinstated during Yeshua's thousand year reign? Eze 44:29-31 Apparently they are not as finished as you think.
I'm glad to hear that you believe that a Gentile like Cornelius can become an Israelite through faith. It seems obvious to me that once a Gentile becomes an Israelite all the commandments that apply to Israel would also apply to that individual. Because he is no longer a stranger! So it sounds like your argument that there are commands for an Israelite believer that a Gentile believer does not have to keep is moot. Because when a Gentile comes to faith he becomes an Israelite. 1Cor 12:2,Eph 2:11-12, 2:19
Where do you see a distinction in Scripture, between the moral aspects of the Torah and the ceremonial aspects of the Torah? I'm just curious. It does not change anything, because Shaul in an effort to show that he was not teaching that any part of the Torah was no longer applicable. Took a Nazerite vow(a strictly ceremonial part of the Torah). He was cleansed in the Temple(another strictly ceremonial part of the Torah) and paid for four other brothers to to be cleansed in the Temple as well.Acts 21:20-26 And he did this long after the Seed came and was killed, buried, resurrected and ascended to Heaven. So you must be misunderstanding Gal 3:19
You say that the apostles and church fathers go before you. But according to Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus
“We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows: “I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Master Yeshua.” Eusebius of Caesarea Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 24
When was the last time you kept the Passover on the 14th day of Aviv, like all those men listed above did? Are you sure that they go before you? Because it does not look like you are following them.
I'm sorry if I offended you. Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to throw rocks at anybody. People that know me know that I can be quite tactless at times. This is one of my greatest faults. I need to learn to be more sensitive to others. Especially when it comes to faith issues! So again, I'm sorry if I offended you. Please forgive my poor choice of words.
We all study the things that are important to us. We are at fault if we only look for the answer we want. Truth lives on. All scripture is useful for gaining our doctrine and all our practices of belief and corrections and rebukes.
There are so called church fathers that did a lot of things + or - the Truth. You can find an example in history to prove any point. Let me know about the apostles that went before us. According to the Bible, The Sabbath is the 7th day, The New moon starts the month, The feasts remain, Jerusalem is Jerusalem, Y'shua is the King. And we are brought near to these things by His blood.
Important things get redefined in this land and many of you know. Now I am in the camp at Psagot, outside Jerusalem, Near ancient ruins of Ai. A temple will be built for the King and Wine and Lambs will be needed. for the sacrifices at the altar for daily, weekly, monthly, annual celebrations.
Galatians 4
ReplyDeleteGal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Gal 4:7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Those spoken of here were “under the law”(v 5), and now are called “Heirs of God through Christ”(v 7). I guess that before Paul got to them they did not know God(v 8) and worshiped false gods( v 8) and were bound to the elements of the this world (v3). Then they got to know God and returned later to “weak and beggarly elements” (v 9) like “days, months, times, years”(v10). So what they returned to was idolatry, not Torah observance.
Then verse 5 says they were under the law before Paul came to them. So they were Idolatrous, Not serving the Torah of Moses. They “knew not God” (v 8).
I cannot think, in keeping with the breadth of Scripture, that the Set apart days in Lev 23 (the Sabbaths of YHWH are what is called “weak and beggarly elements” (v 9). In keeping with Paul’s character, he could not have believed that. It is clear that he kept them.
Sons of YHWH observe His festivals.
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
MinnesotaMikeJan 27, 2012 07:27 AM
ReplyDeleteUltimate culmination of all of life will result in believers eternally "resting" with Him. I still eat bread and I still rest each week on the Seventh day as a sign that He is my creator.
………
Ex 13:6, 16 are signs, tokens, and memorials for us to remember YHWH. He is forgotten if we don't do the things instructed there.
Dealing with Unleavened bread and Passover:
Exo 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
I am adopted(Gal 4:5) into Israel, the covenant people of YHWH , so I am part of the generations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc by being grafted in and brought near by the blood of Yahshua.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
So for me this is a commandment FOREVER because of the unprecedented work of the Savior on Calvary.
The weekly Sabbath is not the only thing referred to, you will see. It is also the set apart days in Lev 23. They are called "My Sabbaths".
R
Thanks Mike.
ReplyDeleteI see the days and months, etc (in verse 9) as definitely speaking of the Torah observances. That is the whole point of Galatians.
Could it be that your presupposition (Paul would never....) is forcing the text to say something different?
Also, Sid has a presupp; he says that God would never call something a sin in the OT, then not in the NT. Well, what about approaching the Holy of holies in the Temple. Isn't that exactly what God did? You would die before if you went beyond the curtain, Not AFTER Christ died on the Christ.
So, my point is that Christ death DID change things and this was all a part of YHWH's plan.
I happen to agree with you, Mike, that we need to observe Sabbath.
The FOREVER you mention IS Christ Himself. He IS our SabbathRest. as I detailed in an earlier post. But too many scriptures inform me that the particular day is no longer relevant - Rom 14:5 off memory (I think you are aware of the others; if not, I'll take time to look them up)
As I asked Sid and Bo, what do you see as "given" UNTIL the SEED (Christ) came?
jeffh
I forgot the reference from my question, "what was GIVEN UNTIL the Seed came? It is Gal 3:19
ReplyDeletejeffh
I have stated my view. Nothing else is necessary.
ReplyDeleteMy posts will not be for the purpose of convincing you. Everyone has responded to you about Gal 3:19. We ( none of us ) don't see what you see. Would you like to talk about something else? Keep your view. It is fine with me.
The Torah is forever, Messiah is the word. He is the Torah. they are layers that co-exist.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW. WE HAVE NOT GIVEN UP GRACE.
Jeff, what happened right as Jesus died on the cross. The veil separating the Holy of Holies was rent in two. Because of what Christ performed on the cross we can now boldly approach the throne. Do you really read into that what was sin in the OT is now "not sin" in the NT? I can see where the variety of demoninations come from. We read it based on our presuppositions. I will say once more, the end result of holding the law as applicable and something we should follow has no downside as long as it is followed out of a heart of love and we realize that the following of it does not produce salvation. Hoping that God will overlook a callous view of sin because I view grace as license may cause us to "become "unfruitful."
ReplyDeleteThe picture conjured up in my mind of YHWH saying "Because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot I will spew you out of my mouth" is not a pretty picture.
Sid
If the rule is that my children are not allowed to put their hands in the cookie jar, may they if I use a sledgehammer to brake the lid in pieces? No.
DeleteThe veil was rent...true.\
ReplyDeleteThe statute that tells us that only the high priest can enter the Holy of holies is not set aside. We can boldly approach the throne of grace in heaven not the one on earth.
"Layers" is a good word.
Hebrews 10
20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
It is the veil of His flesh that was torn so that I could enter the heavenly tabernacle. The one in the physical temple was a sign to us about spiritual. Everything in the temple was continued for 40 years after Messiah's death. Paul and the Apostles participated in its rituals and convocations until it was destroyed even though the top layer of truth had been revealed.
Incidentally, the temple was defiled hundreds of years before Messiah died and the veil was torn. The man/men that went into the holy of holies did not die immediately. The lack of immediate judgment for breaking a commandment does not prove the that the commandment was abolished. I shouldn't run stop signs even if I have noticed many people breaking the law by not braking, pun intended, though they do not die in an accident on the spot or even though they do not get a ticket.
The seventh day of the week still exists. We should participate in the rules of it until it is destroyed along with the the old heavens and earth. That is when time will be no more. That is when Sabbath will done away with. The sun, moon and stars have not been rolled up like a scroll yet, so we should still use those lights to know when to keep YHWH's feasts just like He set up from the beginning.
I guess it is too easy to misapply types and shadows and imagery and parables. Maybe we should just look into the perfect law and do what it says, instead of looking for nondescript and symbolic ways of keeping YHWH's commandments. There will be a great reward for the former and maybe only a symbolic reward for the latter.
Psalm 9
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
Matthew 5
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Revelation 22
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Shalom
it is Psalm 19, not 9 :p
DeleteJeff,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Abram was saved by faith, not by the law. The law saved NO ONE. It only condemns to prepare us for Christ."
The law only condemns to prepare us for Messiah...? It doesn't teach us how to live in harmony with each other...? It doesn't explain how to walk in love...? It doesn't reveal the character of YHWH...? It doesn't make us wiser than our enemies...? etc...?
It does not save. That is for sure. But I sure wouldn't want to live in place where everyone was breaking it all the time.
Imagine no locks on doors. Imagine no computer hackers.
Imagine no road rage.
Imagine the lion laying down with the lamb.
The law cannot make these things happen. It only describes the fruit of a world, a people, a soul that has been saved. We will know saved people by the lack of commandment breaking going on. That is the reverse side of the same coin that says that we will know that they are Y'shua's disciples by their love.
Shalom
Amen, Bo. That is great. May the world see our good works and glorify YHWH as our lights shine.
DeleteMat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Mike: or others -
ReplyDeleteI guess I must have missed your responses to my question; sorry. Could you remind me, "what was given UNTIL the SEED came?"
jeffh
Jeff
ReplyDeleteGalatians3:19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
To be honest with you I really don't know what to do with this Scripture. But thanks to Kepha(Peter) there is one thing I know it can't be saying. That is that the Torah was done away with.
2Peter3:15 Bear in mind that YHWH’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Shaul also wrote you with the wisdom that Elohim gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the LAWLESS(Torah breakers) and fall from your secure position. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of Adonai and Savior Yeshua HaMashiach. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.
So, here I have Kepha telling me not to listen to people like you. No offense intended. Who say that Shaul said not to keep Torah. Kepha himself said that there are things Shaul said that are hard to understand. But there is one thing I should never get out of Shaul's writings and that's what you are saying on this blog.
Also I don't see how the passages you quoted are saying that I can't believe in salvation by grace and still believe that it is a sin to break the Shabbat. Please explain.
Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteMaybe you could answer some of my questions while you wait on me studying Gal.3:19.
I will repost below so that you will not have to jump back and forth.
Shabbat Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteActs 20
6 but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread. In five days we reached them at Troas, where we spent seven days.
Jeff, do you know when the feast of unleavened bread is this year? or was last year? or the year before? Would verse 6 mean much to most modern Christians? Since Paul was in the Roman empire visiting a "Gentile" church and Luke was writing to Theophilus why didn't Luke tell us the name of the Roman month and day of it? Why did Paul tell the Corinthians to keep the feast of unleavened bread? Why did he say that he was going to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost in 1 Corinthians? Why are the time references in the NT all in relation to Sabbath and the Biblical feast days and not according to the Roman calendar? In Acts 13 42-44, why did Paul wait a whole week till the next Sabbath to preach to the gentiles if the very next day (Sunday) was the Christian sabbath? Doesn't it seem that he should have said, "We do not need to wait a week, tomorrow is the Lord's day." instead?
7 On the first day of the week, we assembled to break bread. Paul spoke to them, and since he was about to depart the next day, he extended his message until midnight.
What part of the above verse says that they were having a church service? What part would lead you to believe that it was in the morning? Do you think that these people thought that the first day of the week started at evening? Why didn't they call this day "The Lord's Day"? Why is there no mention in the whole NT of "The Lord's day" except in Revelation when John is describing "The day of the Lord" which is about the final judgment? Why is every reference to the first day of the week during the count to Pentecost? Why does`the literal translation of the phrase really say "one of (the) weeks" instead of first day of the week? Why is this phrase always used during the feast of weeks count? Do you think that Paul preached from morning until midnight? Or just noon till midnight? What time of day did they break the bread?
8 There were many lamps in the room upstairs where we were assembled,
Why even mention the lamps if the meeting started in the daylight? What is in this passage that proves that these people were keeping "The Lord's Day" in place of the Sabbath? What can one passage of scripture that literally says "one of weeks" prove about us not needing to keep the Sabbath and that we should keep Sunday? Where is the command in scripture to keep Sunday as the Christian day of worship or to keep it instead of or as a Sabbath? Who is reading into this passage?
Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteDo you see Abraham keeping Sabbath and teaching his offspring to do the same and then YHWH expecting his descendants to know about it and keep it as they are traveling to Sinai? Do you see that Paul was traveling on Sunday? Do you see Messiah's temptation being the same as the Israelites'...to provide food on Sabbath? Do you see that Luke, in Acts 20, was writing to gentiles and expecting them to be keeping time by the Biblical feast days(Unleavened bread)instead of "Easter" of even "resurrection sunday"? Do you see anything that I have been posting?
Shalom
Thanks Bo,
ReplyDeleteI will wait.
Barrett: Wow, that is quite a revealing admission. If I am hearing you correctly, many in this camp tell us we are deceived by all of the early church fathers and the reformation theologians, and you are being told by ONE man, Kepha, not to listen to me.
Amazing. Did I read you correctly?
May the Lord, Jesus bless your journey Barrett. What Jesus Christ did for you is your answer, Barrett. John 3:16
God bless,
jeffh
How many men in the Bible say to do away with the Torah?
DeleteBo, to answer most of your questions, most imply arguments from silence, which doesn't really help:
ReplyDeleteNo, nothing in the text indicate any of it. The only clues I have in the text is that they broke bread and Paul preached. That is enough. Could I be wrong? sure.
Could you? yes.
That is a good question about Abraham keeping the Sabbath. Hopefully I can look into that.
I am really interested in what was the "added" UNTIL the SEED came in Gal 3:19.
That will help me understand your theology much better.
thanks Bo God bless,
jeffh
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Another one, packaged up just for you, Bo:
please respond to this:
Joshua 1:13
"Remember the word which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, saying, 'The Lord your God gives you rest, and will give you this land.' (NASB)
1. Joshua connects the land with "rest".
2. Deuteronomy 3:20 - Moses had previously made this same connection.
B. Psalm 95:7-11 - This Psalm gives a warning against hard heartedness and speaks of the "rest" that Moses described as a spiritual rest.
7 ... Today, if you would hear His voice, 8 Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness; 9 "When your fathers tested Me, They tried Me, though they had seen My work. 10 "For forty years I loathed [that] generation, And said they are a people who err in their heart, And they do not know My ways. 11 "Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter into My rest." (NASB)
C. Hebrews 3:1-14 - Quotes Psalm 95:8-11 and speaks of the danger of not entering "rest" as the danger of falling away from Christ. Here Christ fulfills the "rest" originally given in the land. Hebrews 4 continues to speak of the fundamental promises to Israel as fulfilled in Jesus Christ and points to faith in Him as the means of receiving the Sabbath rest.
D. Matthew 11:28 - Promises true "rest" in Christ.
jh"
The obvious problem with all the above is that the word rest is an entirely different word than Shabbat or the kind of rest that is to be done on Shabbat. The Hebrew word used in your passages above is about a "resting place/a place to settle down" not about ceasing from our labor and work.
Once the people got to their "resting place" they were still commanded to rest every Shabbat. You have used two totally different words and concepts and tried to equate them. This is one of the main reasons that I cannot accept you "proof" that Y'shua is our Sabbath rest.
You Idea is like saying hamburger is the same as potting soil because both the dirt and the meat is ground. Two different grounds...two different rests.
Shabbat Shalom
Shabbat Shalom everybody.
ReplyDeleteJeff,
ReplyDeleteIf you could take some time and explain how Paul is not contradicting himself in these two verses, it would be appreciated.
Galatians 3
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added...
How can the law be added if nothing can be added to a covenant?
Shalom
Barret:
ReplyDeleteMy boys just helped me read this. I thought Kepha was an advisor of yours; but you meant the quote from Peter in the Bible. Sorry, that makes more sense.
Ha, this blogging gets funny sometimes.
ok, that makes more sense. Yes, I would agree with you, not to listen to lawbreakers.
Amen
jeffh
Bo wrote, "Jeff,
ReplyDeleteIf you could take some time and explain how Paul is not contradicting himself in these two verses, it would be appreciated.
Galatians 3
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added...
How can the law be added if nothing can be added to a covenant?"
Jeff's response:
Bo, that is a GREAT question. The verses in between help alot. There was the covenant to Abraham and his descendants (us). Goes back to Gen 3:15, Gen 12:1-3.
So, in verse 15, we see that God made it into a promise that could not be annuled. And nothing to be added TO it. Nothing has been.
But the law of Moses was different. It was bilateral and add AFTER Abram, NOT added to the Abrahamic Covenant.
Big difference.
So, verse 19 tells us that the REASON it was added was due to their transgressions, and HOW LONG it would last = UNTIL the SEED came.
Does that help? jeffh
Hear this Jeff and don't ask me again about gal 3:19. My presupposition is that all of Scripture must be in accord.
ReplyDeleteYou are stating a verse that is not in accord with the whole of what Paul teaches, nor the breadth of the written word.
Or, we cannot hear Paul say the Torah is done away with.
Is Paul trying to lead us out of the way YHWH taught us to walk.
If he is then he should have been stoned.
Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
Gal 3:19 cannot mean what you make it out to say. Let's go on to something else. None of "us" accepts the Torah being done away with at the Cross.
How can Paul say the seed is Messiah in Gal 3:16 and then the seed is us in Gal 3:29? Layers.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason for the letter to the Galatians is that some people, presumably Jews, were telling them they must be circumcised to be accepted by YHWH.
Gal 5:4
Circumcision is not prerequisite to salvation by grace. It is the Gift of YHWH. No law exists to give salvation.
That does not mean the law is done away with. It means it does not make you a disciple. After a man becomes a follower of yeshua, he will want to know how to live. Tho, the man who follows Yeshua by faith will show it by obedience to the Word, Torah, Law, Commandments.
What, pray tell, is the Law of Christ?
Gal 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
Gal 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Paul is confused or confusing. Do I have to help you carry your load or not?
Mike:
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, I don't think you are being fair. You don't have to agree with me on the conclusion. In fact, I don't know that I have one yet. I hear you say what it is NOT.
But this is a key passage for me. If Paul is NOT referring to the law, then what is he referring to that was added until the Seed came?
I am not trying to be smart. If my theology is still developing, and this verse is not saying what it is saying, then I need to rethink.
So, it is a big deal to me. You are free to ignore it, that's fine, but I hope you'll reconsider.
thanks,
In Christ alone,
jeffh
Another question, Mike:
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned your presupposition was "is that all of Scripture must be in accord."
I totally agree with you. I have the same presupp, ok?
Now, if I could show you a theology that is different than yours as well as the typical "Law is done away with" theology, AND yet holds is that all of Scripture in accord. - even better, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO HEARING IT AND EVEN RECONSIDER YOUR THEOLOGY ON THIS?
Jeffh
Here is another verse that could be understood to take away the Law.
ReplyDeleteRom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Paul, though, states the following:
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
This is present-tense.
Another use of the word "Until":
ReplyDeleteRom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Does Paul state here that sin was no longer in the world after the Law came? Until Mt Sinai no one was guilty of any sin?
That is what it says.
Paul is hard to understand.
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
ReplyDeleteRom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
What does Paul use to point out what love looks like? {Commandments.}
Good points. Esp on Rom 10:4. I agree with you on the "end" being Christ \ that it is not doing away with law.
ReplyDeleteGal 3:19 has me really puzzled, to be honest. What does he mean? It is a key verse and should not be ignored.
It would be like throwing out 1 Jn 4:8, "God is love" if we are being told God is not love.
jh
Jeff
ReplyDeleteHaha. I can see how that would be disturbing. If someone was really taking the advice of one man over the opinion of the church fathers. I agree this mode of discussion leaves much to be desired.
I wont you to know that I'm in complete agreement with you that our fathers in the OT were saved through faith and not through works of Torah.
Also I've been praying and meditating on Gal3:19. I don't think that it is saying that the Torah was given only until the Seed(Messiah)comes. Could it be saying that the Torah was given because of our transgressions until the Seed comes. Of course after Yeshua took our transgressions on himself there is no way that the Torah could still be here for that reason. But that does not mean that it is still not here for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. So that we as men of Elohim may be equipped for every good work. 2Timothy3:16-17 Just thinking out loud. What do you think? I'm also not sure what "added for transgressions" means. But there is one thing I know it can't mean. And that is that Torah somehow saved the people of the OT before Yeshua.
I don't think that John3:16 is saying that I can't believe something is sin like breaking the Shabbat or homosexuality, and still believe in salvation by grace. I believe it is saying that even though we will sin, we are saved through His grace. John3:16 did not change the definition of sin. If breaking the Shabbat or homosexuality was sin before John3:16 they are still sins after John3:16.
Shabbat Shalom
All, I did not mean that following the law in the OT was the means of salvation. But I do think that even as today their high or low view of the law was indicative of where their heart was.
ReplyDeleteSid
That can get sticky. I was pretty sure that was what you were meaning. I wonder if obedience still shows the attitude of the heart and the faith we carry.
DeleteWas faith always shown by works? Seems like it.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYou have placed alot of emphasis on the "Abrahamic" Covenant. You also said:
"But the law of Moses was different. It was bilateral and add AFTER Abram, NOT added to the Abrahamic Covenant.
Big difference.
So, verse 19 tells us that the REASON it was added was due to their transgressions, and HOW LONG it would last = UNTIL the SEED came."
Two quick questions.
1. Gal. 3:15 says that a covenant cannot be added to, or dissanulled.
How then, can you say that the Mosaic covenant has been dissanulled at this point after the Seed has come. Wouldn't that be directly contradicting what Paul just said five verses earlier?
2. For the Abrahamic covenant to take effect, YHVH told him in Gen.17:1 that he(Abraham) had to walk before Him and be perfect. If Abraham kept his side of the covenant then YHVH would be his YHVH and his children's YHVH after him. (Gen 17:7) Later, in Gen 26:5 YHVH tells Isaac that he will keep the covenant,"Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Galatians 3:6 says that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.
Would this not seem to say that Abraham's faith was recognized because of his fruit/works+faith?
In our family we have been studying the life and ministry of Paul. I have been amazed how many times during his ministry that he publicly affirmed the importance of keeping the law(Acts 18:21, 24:14, 21:20-24, 25:8, 28:23 to name a few) I must believe that Paul wouldn't contradict himself. Either in the covenant being done away with and yet not, or by telling us that we do not need to keep the mosaic covenant and then keeping it himself. Remember Paul says in Galations 1:8 that if he or any other person or angel preach anything different than that which he had already preached, they would be accursed. Paul must have known then, that he was being quoted as being on both sides of these issues. We must look to the full breadth of scripture and see what he really meant.
Orrin
Barret:
ReplyDeleteI commend you for being the first one to attempt to explain what was added until the Seed came. Look again, if you will, at your response. You actually said the reason for the law given.
Orrin:
Gen 17:1-2 are actually expressing the Unilateral Abrahamic Covenant. When God said, walk before me, that, in Hebrew, was not conditional. I believe this is the first time YHWH refers to Himself as El Shaddai.
Mountain.
He is NOT annuling anything;
IF THE NDDOT PUTS A DETOUR SIGN UP BECAUSE THE ROAD IS BAD, UNTIL THE NEW BRIDGE IS BUILT, there is not annulment there. The detour has served it's purpose. Getting to the other side is still in effect, no problem. In a similar way, Gal 3:19 is saying that. Because the road was bad (their transgressions) God gave those external observances. Until a better way was provided - our bridge - Christ.
No laws have been annuled, just a better way. (What Hebrews is all about) - a superior law. A law of love. The Holy Spirit IN us.
Some examples:
-Sacrifice to Christ to living sacrifice - Rom 12:1-2 - fulfillment, not annulment.
-Blessing to Christ to all the families of the earth. Acts 1:8, ETC.
Fulfillment, not annulment.
-Eating clean meat to Christ to righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Rom 14:15-17
Fulfillment, not annulment.
-Deliverance from Egypt to Christ to our deliverance from sin.
No annulment, only fulfillment. (we don't go crossing the Red Sea anymore, correct?)
-Passover to Christ to communion blood of the Covenant. In fact, forever.
no annulment, only fulfillment.
On and on I could go, I think you get the point, though.
God still was the maker of the Covenant as He repeats it in the next verses. Note who is the subject and who is doing the action. ALL God.
This is the classic error often made when people confuse the two covenants.
Take what you wrote about Gal 3:15. Again, here God is NOT annulling anything in the Abrahamic Covenant. We see in Gal 3:17, that Paul is switching to another Covenant. It says, "I say that the law, which was four hundred years later......"
This is obviously Mosaic.
Ok, so now go to the torah laws and notice the grammar. If we could all know Hebrew, it would help even more. God is calling for us as the subject of the sentence and the actions.
So, what you are saying regarding Gal 3:6, THEN, is spot on. You are actually supporting what I am trying to say.
You mentioned Gen 26:5 - this, too, read the context. It is a beautiful picture of what happens AFTER God does the work of the Covenant, NOTICE just before the Unilateral Abrahamic Covenant is spoken and the result is Abram obeying God.
Acts does this alot.
We DO obey God as a result of He work IN us through Christ. The Gospel brings the forgiveness which is, again the BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT, one which will LAST FOREVER, just as God expected from Israel (they failed, Christ succeeded). Ex 3:15ff.
more later,
jeffh
Orrin:
ReplyDeleteYou also mentioned some verses in Acts.
Good ones and I can see how you can come to that conclusion about Jewish observances.
It is late, but just a couple of things:
1. Again, those reinforce what I have been trying to get across. The Law is NOT done away with; it prepares us for and leads us to Christ (not the other way around).
REMEMBER PAUL SAID, "TO THE JEWS I BECAME A JEW AS TO WIN THEM OVER, not for torah observance, but for Christ. Acts 18:21
2. For example, you cited Acts 25:8, again Paul is very careful not to offend the Jews. He loves them.
Also, you cited 24:14 - good one. no argument there.
Then, Acts 21:25, the Gentiles, "no, not for them...."
Then, 28:23, notice "who" this is concerning. Jesus. Jesus FROM the Law and Prophets. Jesus IS the fulfillment. It needed to be told.
Jeff, You said I am not playing fair. I will give you a more complete answer to Gal 3:19 instead of jumping to what it does not/cannot mean.
ReplyDeleteYou keep asking what was added. It is obvious, the law was added.
The legal requirements were added to the promise made to Abraham. So that, until the seed come, YHWH could use the law to create transgressions/sin. That is, to prick the conscience, to cause men to turn to Him. Being made constantly aware of falling short of ever being able to completely obey those laws, the men will see that they need a savior.
I sure hope the young men are still out there. If we "old guys" dominate the conversation and sharpen our pencils in the ears of the young men who were original members of this blog, I am not sure we are fulfilling the law of Christ.
ReplyDeleteJeff, you used one word picture of "until the seed was come." Allow me to think out loud. The way I would look at this is like I gave you a road map until you got GPS. They perform the same function. GPS does it better but it does not negate the need for direction and the I don't dispose of an understanding of the map because I got a GPS.
ReplyDeleteThe law is referred to as the "perfect law of liberty" in James 1. You don't mess with perfection.
Sid
Jeff and everybody else,
ReplyDeleteI still have too many ideas and cannot bring them down to a concise statement, which for me means 10,000 words :)}>
Considering that the question Paul is answering in Gal.3:19 in in the context of justification by faith, it would seem that his answer is intended for clarification in that regard. There are many other things that Paul says about the law that might seem to contradict his statement in verse 19, but there may be more to his thought process than meets the eye. This is not unusual for Paul. For now please check out this link:
http://www.eliyah.com/galatianskjv.html
It is a verse by verse commentary/teaching on Galatians and has some good insight. I cannot agree with everything the author says, but it seems that he has thought it through and tries to keep the whole book of Galatians and the whole Bible, for that matter, in view in his presentation.
I will continue to meditate and study and condense...I will try to condense.
Shalom
To all: After reading some of these comments, I don't feel like anyone is saying that the Torah is our goal. I believe Christ is the goal. The Torah is our instructions on how to live for Christ. Some of these comments have been repetitive and are giving the same result. Jeff, I am not sure what you are trying to create from your comments. If we begin to remove the instructions on how to live, we are already dead, please don't say the spirit leads you and thats it. We consistently give our young and old children guidelines on how to live in our homes. And that is acceptable? We should remember YHWH does not change and will always be the same. I would like to include the thought also that if you remove his Sabbath, you are saying his Covenant is not good enough for you. Please be advised it has been given since the beginning of time and will continue in the future. Paul cannot change that, and neither has Messiah. Got to go to work. Add scripture later. thanks shannon
ReplyDeleteSid:
ReplyDeleteAmen. I think you've got it. That is EXACTLY what I am trying to get across.
thanks,
Now, read my post response to Orrin. That is what fulfillment is all about. The law remains, but a better way of fulfilling that law has come in Christ.
jeffh
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteA better way to fulfill "do not commit adultery" is to not lust after her in our hearts...to love her husband and her.
A better way to "remember to keep the Sabbath holy" can not mean to not keep Sabbath. It has to be that we love YHWH so much that we cannot wait to spend the day with Him and our family obeying His request to rest and convocate. It has to be that we do not covet His time for ourselves.
It cannot be like this:
Amos 8
5 Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?
It must be like this:
Isaiah 58
13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
According to Isaiah and Amos, the proper attitude is to delight to do YHWH's Sabbaths and New moons, not to supposedly fulfill them some other way...working and doing business and our own ideas of fulfillment.
Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYou need to deal with this:
You wrote:
"Another one, packaged up just for you, Bo:
please respond to this:
Joshua 1:13
"Remember the word which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, saying, 'The Lord your God gives you rest, and will give you this land.' (NASB)
1. Joshua connects the land with "rest".
2. Deuteronomy 3:20 - Moses had previously made this same connection.
B. Psalm 95:7-11 - This Psalm gives a warning against hard heartedness and speaks of the "rest" that Moses described as a spiritual rest.
7 ... Today, if you would hear His voice, 8 Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness; 9 "When your fathers tested Me, They tried Me, though they had seen My work. 10 "For forty years I loathed [that] generation, And said they are a people who err in their heart, And they do not know My ways. 11 "Therefore I swore in My anger, Truly they shall not enter into My rest." (NASB)
C. Hebrews 3:1-14 - Quotes Psalm 95:8-11 and speaks of the danger of not entering "rest" as the danger of falling away from Christ. Here Christ fulfills the "rest" originally given in the land. Hebrews 4 continues to speak of the fundamental promises to Israel as fulfilled in Jesus Christ and points to faith in Him as the means of receiving the Sabbath rest.
D. Matthew 11:28 - Promises true "rest" in Christ.
jh"
The obvious problem with all the above is that the word rest is an entirely different word than Shabbat or the kind of rest that is to be done on Shabbat. The Hebrew word used in your passages above is about a "resting place/a place to settle down" not about ceasing from our labor and work.
Once the people got to their "resting place" they were still commanded to rest every Shabbat. You have used two totally different words and concepts and tried to equate them. This is one of the main reasons that I cannot accept you "proof" that Y'shua is our Sabbath rest.
You Idea is like saying hamburger is the same as potting soil because both the dirt and the meat is ground. Two different grounds...two different rests.
Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Bo, to answer most of your questions, most imply arguments from silence, which doesn't really help:
No, nothing in the text indicate any of it. The only clues I have in the text is that they broke bread and Paul preached. That is enough. Could I be wrong? sure.
Could you? yes."
Why can you not answer simple questions? Here are a few:
Concerning Acts 20:
Jeff, do you know when the feast of unleavened bread is this year? or was last year? or the year before? Would verse 6 mean much to most modern Christians? Since Paul was in the Roman empire visiting a "Gentile" church and Luke was writing to Theophilus why didn't Luke tell us the name of the Roman month and day of it? Why did Paul tell the Corinthians to keep the feast of unleavened bread? Why did he say that he was going to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost in 1 Corinthians? Why are the time references in the NT all in relation to Sabbath and the Biblical feast days and not according to the Roman calendar?
Do you think that these people thought that the first day of the week started at evening? Why didn't they call this day "The Lord's Day"? Why is every reference to the first day of the week during the count to Pentecost? Why does`the literal translation of the phrase really say "one of (the) weeks" instead of first day of the week? Why in the NT is this phrase always used during the feast of weeks (Pentecost) count? Do you think that Paul preached from morning until midnight? Or just noon till midnight? What time of day did they break the bread?
What can one passage of scripture that literally says "one of weeks" prove about us not needing to keep the Sabbath and that we should keep Sunday? Where is the command in scripture to keep Sunday as the Christian day of worship or to keep it instead of or as a Sabbath?
These are not arguments from silence. They are questions.
Shalom
Sorry, Bo.
ReplyDeleteAgain, No.
I will be touch and go this week on blogging. Please be patient.
jeffh
Shannon:
ReplyDeleteYou have me curious,
Are Paul's writings in the NT equally inspired from God to you at the Torah?
Is one superior or more valid in your presuppostion?
jeffh
Well Guys,
ReplyDeleteI guess we can just spiritualize away the other 9 of the 10 commandments and the rest of YHWH's law. Never mind the physical because it has all been fulfilled.
No need to remain faithful to our spouses, because it is really about being loyal to heavenly bridegroom. No need to not steal, because it is really about treasure in heaven. No need to refrain from idolatry because it is really about...what? No need to honor our earthly parents because it is really about honoring YHWH.
Never mind that it would dishonor YHWH to dishonor our parents. Never mind that not keeping Sabbath shows our disloyalty to our Creator. We are free. Free to sin. Lets all rejoice and be glad because the law has been fulfilled.
Do not worry about incest and rape. Do not worry about sodomy. Do not worry about witchcraft and fortune telling. Messiah fulfilled it all. Put statues of Buddha and the Easter bunny in your yard.
Do not pay your debts...run those credit card balances up and just file bankruptcy. Ain't grace great?
Sorry, Jeff.
Can't go your way.
Please answer my questions if you have answers.
Did you read this:
http://www.eliyah.com/galatianskjv.html
Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteWhat are you going to do about this huge problem in your theology?
The obvious problem with all your thoughts about the temple (resting place) is that the word rest is an entirely different word than Shabbat or the kind of rest that is to be done on Shabbat. The Hebrew word used in your passages above is about a "resting place/a place to settle down" not about ceasing from our labor and work.
Once the people got to their "resting place" they were still commanded to rest every Shabbat. You have used two totally different words and concepts and tried to equate them. This is one of the main reasons that I cannot accept you "proof" that Y'shua is our Sabbath rest.
You Idea is like saying hamburger is the same as potting soil because both the dirt and the meat is ground. Two different grounds...two different rests.
Shalom
Bo,
ReplyDeleteyour first response reveals quite abit about you and your approach to discussing theology and sharpening iron. I honestly thought you were different than the typical Hebrew Torah person I've met. I actually thought you were assuming the best in others. . Sorry to find out, differently.
On your second post, there is no huge problem in my theology. There may be in your thinking about my theology, but you are not considering context and semantic range in your interpretation of the Sabbath.
That is why, at the beginning, I thought it would be a good idea to start somewhere other than Sabbath.
Please allow me time to answer your many questions. This is important to me, but I still have many other obligations to attend to.
In Christ, jeffh
Jeff,
ReplyDeletePlease do not answer me. The conversation is fruitless. If we cannot agree about the 10 commandments, we will not agree about much else. You will not budge and I will not budge.
I have attempted multiple times to discuss things with you. You have been coy and have not shown that you want to discuss it. You have said that your mind is not made up, but you refuse to budge even when your logic and ideas are shown to be faulty.
Now I am sterotyped into the typical Hebrew Torah person category. Allow me to speak like one of them then.
I used a bit of sarcasm to show you your faulty version of fulfill. Why is it that the only things that your logic works on is Sabbath, feast days and food? Why can't we go around naked? Surely the laws about clothing have been fulfilled. Messiah wore just the right type to fulfill the prophesy in Psalms about them.
If Messiah fulfilled everything by the time He had resurrected why was there still a fulfillment of Shavuot (Pentecost) that His disciples were to wait in Jerusalem for? If He had fulfilled the dietary laws, why did Peter not know about it 10 years later in Acts 10? 10 years is a long time. Your version of fulfill is not consistent nor is it biblical.
There is no way that you logic for "Messiah fulfilled Sabbath" or that "He is our Sabbath rest" can be backed up in scripture. We are Sabbath breakers if we do not keep it the way the scripture says to. All of your spiritualizing does is give you an excuse to not keep it. It sounds exactly like what the Pharisees did.
Mark 7
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
You are doing the same thing as the "corban" ruling. You have come up with a doctrine that makes the commandment of YHWH of none effect. How is that not honoring with the lips but being disobedient...proving that the heart is far from Him? Our works prove us whether we will walk in His laws or not. Sabbath is the proving ground.
It is not I that is not considering the semantic range. I have demonstrated your error. MY interpretation of Sabbath is not an interpretation. It is what is simply and straightforwardly stated in scripture.
You still have time. You are not dead yet. You need to stop deceiving yourself and start being a doer of the word. The problem is that if you start doing and teaching others to do it, you will likely loose your job. You might loose your wife. The cost is great. Choose you this day who you will serve.
Shalom
My goal is not to convince you. My goal is what this site states, "to sharpen iron" - both mine and yours. I think that is being done. I think this is very fruitful.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to respond and to continue.
I don't think it is too much to ask that we "assume the best" of each other's attempts to do theology.
That each of us is trying to exegete as best we can.
If the expectation is for someone to budge, then yes, back out. I don't expect that. It would be nice, but there are many better reasons for me in debating from two differing camps.
Other than the post from MacArthur, I've given you my own work, which is still in progress.
As far as your claim that I am using two different words, ok.
Which two? Because Josh 1:13, Psalm 95 are not different. Also, Hebrews 3 is a direct quote, so that is not different.
And yes, Matthew 11:29 is a different word, but that is because it is a totally different language. It is Greek, the OT is Hebrew (I know you know that, I am not being sarcastic).
Finally, my theology propels me to keep going. By way of confession and forgiveness, to you I apologize for "categorizing" you as typical.
Not that you have to, but I think you do owe me one also.
This leads me to a question. In the theological camp you are from, is there much about confession and forgiveness, other that coming to Christ the first time?
Again, serious question. I have not seen any. Not that there isn't, I just haven't seen it.
God bless, Bo
jeffh
It is not more "loving" to leave a brother in error for fear of offending him.
DeleteBo and I "camp" together. I will answer for our "camp": Yes, we believe in confession of sin besides just at salvation. I don't judge that Bo has sinned against you.
Orrin, Bo, Jeff and all, let's move forward. Once again I am reminded of a story. A certain farmer had a severe gambling problem. Everyone including his pastor knew of it. Many had talked to him but to no avail. One day the preacher decided to address gambling from the pulpit just for this man. He preached it straight. After the service the man shook the preachers hand and said, "Boy, you really told them today." A few weeks later the preacher decided to try again on a Sunday night when there were only a handful of people in attendance. At the close of the service once again the man shook the preacher's hand vigorously and said, "That was great. You really told them tonight." A few weeks later there was a very bad blizzard on a Wednesday and the only person in attendance at church that evening besides the pastor was this old farmer. The preacher knew that this was the opportunity he had been looking for. He really laid it on the line and preached it straight about the evils of gambling. At the close of the service the man shook the preacher's hand and said, "Boy, you sure would have told them if they had been here tonight, preacher."
ReplyDeleteSometimes as we filter things through our presuppostions it is hard for us to see what to others is very clear. We are getting nowhere just recycling the same arguments. Let's hear from some of you other onlookers out there who are following this blog but as yet have not weighed in. This is a good opportunity for you to sharpen your mind and understanding of YHWH's word through digging deep to support your beliefs. Sometimes as I search I find support and sometimes I find a need to change my deeply held positions. Praise YHWH for His word which is everlasting and sharper than any two edged sword. I am really enjoying this exchange. It makes me think of what David said "Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee."
Good exegesis there, Bo.
Shalom,
Sid
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteSorry for getting a bit perturbed with you.
I have asked so many questions that remain unanswered. Maybe you do not read all of my posts. I repost them once and sometimes twice.
Your theology on rest/sabbath is using two different categories of words and concepts and equating them.
5117 נוח nuwach noo’ akh
1) to rest
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to rest, settle down and remain
1a2) to repose, have rest, be quiet
1b) (Hiph)
1b1) to cause to rest, give rest to, make quiet
1b2) to cause to rest, cause to alight, set down
1b3) to lay or set down, deposit, let lie, place
The above word used in Josh.1:13; Deut. 3:20 and have the meaning of a place to settle or dwell.
4496 מנוחה m@nuwchah men-oo-khaw’ or מנחה m@nuchah men-oo-khaw’
1) resting place, rest
1a) resting place
1b) rest, quietness
The above word is used in Psa. 95:11; Isa. 66:1 and is a related word to 5117. Both Hebrew words are speaking of a resting place not a ceasing from labor.
07673 שׁבת shabath shaw-bath’
1) to cease, desist, rest
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to cease
1a2) to rest, desist (from labour)
7676 שׁבת shabbath shab-bawth’
1) Sabbath
1a) sabbath
1b) day of atonement
1c) sabbath year
1d) week
7677 שׁבתון shabbathown shab-baw-thone’
1) Sabbath observance, sabbatism
1a) of weekly sabbath
1b) day of atonement
1c) sabbatical year
1d) of Feast of Trumpets
1e) of the 1st and last days of the Feast of Tabernacles
The related words above are speaking of ceasing from labor or work. The word for Sabbath comes from the word that means to cease from labor. This concept is not the same as the passages that you quoted about the promised land or temple.
Messiah will be our temple in the new heavens and earth. He is not our Sabbath. We are His temple now. We are not His Sabbath. The context in the passages above should be enough for us to see that there is a difference between a Sabbath rest and dwelling place. I will repost what I said before so that you can see the connections.
Shalom
We Menookhaw on Shabbat.
DeleteThe word Shabbat is inseparable from from the idea of 7th or week. It is cyclical.
The obvious problem with all your thoughts about the temple (resting place) is that the word rest is an entirely different word than Shabbat or the kind of rest that is to be done on Shabbat. The Hebrew word used in your passages above is about a "resting place/a place to settle down" not about ceasing from our labor and work.
ReplyDeleteOnce the people got to their "resting place" they were still commanded to rest every Shabbat. You have used two totally different words and concepts and tried to equate them. This is one of the main reasons that I cannot accept you "proof" that Y'shua is our Sabbath rest.
You Idea is like saying hamburger is the same as potting soil because both the dirt and the meat is ground. Two different grounds...two different rests.
Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"
C. Hebrews 3:1-14 - Quotes Psalm 95:8-11 and speaks of the danger of not entering "rest" as the danger of falling away from Christ. Here Christ fulfills the "rest" originally given in the land. Hebrews 4 continues to speak of the fundamental promises to Israel as fulfilled in Jesus Christ and points to faith in Him as the means of receiving the Sabbath rest."
Hebrews does not point to receiving a Sabbath rest by believing in Messiah. It speaks of laboring to enter into a promised land rest. (Scripture speaks over and over about dwelling in Messiah.) Making sure that we do not fall in same manner that those that came before us did by unbelief and disobedience.
The book of Hebrews was written just before Jerusalem was sacked. It was preparing the Jewish believers in Messiah for the changes that would come into their lives. No temple or Levitical priesthood would be available in the very near future. They would be expelled from the physical promised land.
I see Hebrews 4:9 as stating that even though there are going to be a lot of changes, Sabbath keeping (Sabbatismos) will remain/continue.
And it did according to the earliest Church Fathers' writings. The assemblies in Asia continued to keep the Sabbath and the feasts and were called into question by the bishop of Rome. Their answer was that they would continue to keep Passover like the Apostle John taught Polycarp (his disciple) and the rest of their ancestors. All the Churches in Asia were almost excommunicated because of this stand.
Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"D. Matthew 11:28 - Promises true "rest" in Christ."
Matthew 11
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
1 ¶ At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
The connection between Messiah giving rest/light burdens and the Scribes and Pharisees laying heavy burdens upon men is seen in the above context. Y'shua is the Master of the Sabbath. The additional rules and laws that the religious leaders laid on people was the burden. Pure Torah is not a burden according to the scripture. It is not too difficult for us, if it is in our hearts.
Deuteronomy 30
10 if thou shalt obey the voice of the YHWH thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto YHWH thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
The only other place in scripture that the phrase "rest for you souls" is found is here:
Jeremiah 6
16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
I think that this is what Y'shua was quoting in Matthew. The old paths are pure Torah without all the manmade additions. It is the way we were designed to walk. If we allow YHWH to write His commandments on our hearts, we will want to keep them.
Y'shua is the Lord of the Sabbath. He told us what to do. No man has any right to add to or take away from those instructions.
Shalom
Rom 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
DeleteRom 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Deut 30 : 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Paul says he preached the same thing as Deut 30
I would not want to be one of the ones that said "We will not walk therein."
ReplyDeleteShalom
I will walk therein. The Spirit and the Bride say "Come".
DeleteHeb 4:9 There
ReplyDeleteremainethG620 {left where it was}
thereforeG686
a restG4520 {sabbatismos}
to theG3588 peopleG2992 of God.G2316
I hear it this way: The Sabbath has been left for the people of YHWH. NOT the Sabbath has been forsaken by the people of YHWH.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
It looks like we menookhaw in a katapausis after we Ceased from work. This doesn't seem to be Shabbat.(?!)
Also, in 4:10, it is “God”. That must point to the Creation as the example.
The word in Hebrews 4:9 is the actual Hebrew word for Shabbat translit into Greek, Latin, Spanish,English,Swahili. What ever language it is translated into now or in the future--- in the "original" it says sabbatismos, rather than κατάπαυσις as in Heb 4:10 katapausis= rest,G2663 = reposing, abode or place of rest.
By way of “presupposition” , Look what the Strongs says on Esword.
ReplyDeleteG4520 σαββατισμός = sabbatismos
sab-bat-is-mos'
From a derivative of G4521; a “sabbatism”, that is, (figuratively) the repose of Christianity (as a type of heaven): - rest.
It “presupposes” just what Christianity believes. , (figuratively); of Christianity; type of heaven…
Compare to G2663 κατάπαυσις
katapausis kat-ap'-ow-sis
From G2664; reposing down, that is, (by Hebraism) abode: - rest.
Another Presupp! Only Hebrew this time.
I think this is rampant in “theology” = the study of God-stuff
This is not my response to anything in particular. I am bringing this up out of my own reading. But this does relate to the posted topic.
ReplyDeleteRev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Focus on v 19. What will be taken away?
#1 part out of the book;
#2 out of the holy city;
#3 from the things which are written in this book.
Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
The "book".
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
"Reward"
Dan 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
"Great in the Kingdom"
There is a lot of the NT herein.
This is "devotional" in nature. I am not equipped in prophecy. And I know it!
Bo,
ReplyDeleteapology accepted.
I have a very full week, so if I am not blogging, please know that it is NOT a cut and run.
- I will not be able to physically go through all of these questions. At least not on a blog format as they are way to many and my blogs would be unrealistically long.
But, I will TRY to check your exegetical work with someone more qualified to discern it.
I know a few people who can handle Hebrew and Greek. One teaches Hebrew.
I hope I can print these off.
I will also try to read that website you mentioned. Please send it again.
I would also recommend a book to you (I have not read it yet), since I wanted this posting to be my own work. It is by DA Carson on the "Sabbath".
God bless, jeffh
Bo, one more question that is haunting me (I suspect etymological errors in your exegesis, but I could be wrong)
ReplyDeleteWhen you read the Greek of the NT writings, do you filter them through a Hebrew lens?
I am not saying that is bad, necessarily, but it will really help me understand how you are getting to some of your conclusions.
I know this blog could (and should) move on beyond Sabbath topics, but I would be very interested in continuing with you, if you are interested by email. Mike, or others as well. So I don't clog up this blog anymore.
jeffhoverson@yahoo.com
YHWH bless,
jeffh
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteHere is the link you asked for:
http://www.eliyah.com/galatianskjv.html
I do not know if I read the NT through a Hebrew lens. I just try to get all I can out of a passage by comparing as much scripture, Hebrew and Greek, as possible. The more I know Torah and the Prophets and the psalms, the easier the book of Hebrews is to understand.
Shalom
Ok, Bo or others. By the way, I am enjoying the one on one by email from one. (Bo, I have started reading that site you posted, thank you.)
ReplyDeleteI have a question for this group (is it fair to say Torah Observers for sake of simplicity - or something other? Doesn't matter to me)
Qualifier: I am not entering this post for the purpose of "convincing". I have a real question and want to be sure I understand your theology correctly, ok?
HERE IT IS:
Are you saying that the food in
1 Cor 8:8 is not the unclean / clean food of the Torah laws;
that the freedom to eat and drink whatever, whether Jew or Greek in 1 Cor 10:31-32 is not the eat and drink of the Torah laws;
that the meat in Rom 14:6 is not the meat of the Torah laws;
that the unclean food of Mark 7:2 is not the unclean of Torah laws;
that the unclean that goes in a man in Mark 7:15-19 is not the unclean of the Torah laws;
that the days of Rom 14: 5 are not the days of the Torah laws;
that the written code in Col 2:14 is not relative to Torah laws;
that the eat or drink in Col 2:16 is not the eat of Torah laws;
that the New Moon celebration or Sabbath day of Col 2:16-17 are not the Torah laws;
that the rest in Heb 3-4 is not Jesus Christ, but a day of the week?
And as far as Galatians, there are so many, suffice it to say, "the whole book".
this post is holding off on the Book of Acts for now, since it is a mix of Jews and Greeks and invites more complexity than I am interested in first.
I think you get the question. Anyhow, I am not looking for a fight or even trying to convince.
But either these ARE part of the Torah laws OR not OR I am missing something. Could be my brain, ha ha
I would invite a response that can clarify for me whether Paul is wrong or whether I am reading Paul wrong.
IF THESE ARE NOT TORAH, THAN PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THEY ARE. I WOULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM ORIGINAL SOURCES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
I am looking for people who want to inform, not necessarily convince, though you are welcome either way.
For longer explanations, I would prefer emailing me at jeffhoverson@yahoo.com
I respect Orrin's blog here and don't want to spiral this in a direction he did not intend for this blog to go.
Finally, I know there are other verses pointing the other way, but if we could just answer these first, I would appreciate it. I am willing to go to other verses later, but really would like to know about the aforementioned ones first. Yes or No on those please.
Thanks much, jeffhoverson@yahoo.com
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteThe three most important things to consider when buying real estate is location, location and location. With scripture it is context, context and context.
1 Cor. 8:8 is in the context of food offered to idols. It is not dealing with what animals are considered food by YHWH. 1 Cor. 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
1 Cor 10:31-32 is about food offered to idols again. If we do not know if it is offered to idols, we may eat the food. We should not eat it if someone tells us that it has been offered to idols. Nothing here about YHWH's clean and unclean food laws. 1 Cor. 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:
Rom 14:6 is about eating animal flesh or only vegetables. Rom. 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Mark 7:2 is dealing with rabbinical rulings as there is nothing in Torah about washing our hands before we eat. The next verse tells us where this rule came from. Mark 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, HOLDING THE TRADITION OF THE ELDERS.
Mark 7:15-19
The Jewish people were not eating unclean animals. It was not called food by them or Messiah. Mark 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) All foods are clean and we do not need to wash our hands before we eat. Our dirty hands do not make the food we eat unclean. Disobedience of any sort does make us unclean. Eating unclean animals is disobedience. It is lusting for something that YHWH has not approved of. It is covetousness. Lust/covetousness makes us unclean because it comes from our hearts.(Mark 7:22)
Romans 14:5 is dealing with days that we put importance upon. Things like national holidays and birthdays and what days we have set aside to fast and pray, etc. The days that YHWH has commanded us to keep holy are days that He esteems. We have no right to disobey Him or unesteem His days. There is a difference between a day that we place importance upon and a holy day declared by YHWH. Yes, we should esteem the days that YHWH set apart as holy. The context does not discuss YHWH's holy days. Just peoples personal preferences in what they like to eat and what days they set aside for feasting or fasting or not either.
Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYou keep asking more and more questions and have not answered my questions.
Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteCol 2:14 is speaking about the record of our transgression of Torah and not about Torah being taken away.
Let’s look at verses 11 through 14.
Colossians 2
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
These verses are sandwiched between the “principalities and powers” verses. The first of those two verses lets us know that Y’shua is the head of all authorities. The second is speaking specifically about His triumph over the religious authorities in the realm of Judaism and that He openly proved their rulings to be manmade traditions of men that turn from the truth. Where do we stand in all of this? We are complete in Him. His wisdom and knowledge is everything we need to know.
In verse eleven we are told about our spiritual circumcision. As Paul says, “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law, But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Rom. 2:26-27, 29) Our circumcised hearts want to do what YHWH asks of us. We were dead because we were not in covenant with YHWH (uncircumcision of our flesh) and because our transgressions of His law (sins). With this new heart, we submit to the act of baptism, and by so doing we announce our loyalty to Messiah and YHWH. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.” (1 Pet. 3:21-22) Peter gives a second witness to the idea that our baptism puts us in a place where our allegiance is directly to the Head of all principality and power. This is why verse 16 of Colossians 2 says that we are to let no man judge us. “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” (1 Cor. 7:23)
To be continued below.
Continued from above.
ReplyDeleteNow, our hearts being purified by faith and with our desire to please YHWH, we are alive because of the forgiveness of our trespasses. Verse fourteen tells us, in legal terms, how this forgiveness was accomplished. The phrase, “handwriting of ordinances” in the Greek world of Paul’s day was the equivalent of an IOU. This term was also used in the court system for the official written charges against the defendant. This term was not used to mean the “body of law” or “legal requirements.”
Literally, our “certificate of debt” (whether to a creditor or the community) was canceled…”blotted out.” All the charges against us and our debt to YHWH, because of our sins, were nailed to the execution stake when Y’shua took our guilt upon Himself.
YHWH’s law was not “nailed to the cross” as some modern, Christian principalities and powers (religious leaders) emphatically state. It was the record of our transgressions of His law that were dealt with. Messiah did not forgive us our trespasses by doing away with the law, as that would be the same as making sin not be sin anymore. And we know that the very same things that were wrong before we came to faith are still wrong. If we read verse 14 in such a way as to nullify YHWH’s perfect law, we end up doing the same thing that the Jewish principalities and powers (religious leaders) were doing by their interpretation of the law. “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:13) We also contradict Y’shua’s direct statement: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Mat. 5:17)
Shalom
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteCol. 2:16-17 are speaking of YHWH's instructions. We are to let no man judge us concerning us reverencing them. The scripture is the only rule of faith and practice. The passage does not say let no man judge you for not keeping them. We are to obey the scripture and no man has any right to add to or take away from what the scripture says about how and when to keep them.
15 And having spoiled principalities (Strong’s #746) and powers (Strong’s #1849), he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
What is the “therefore” there for in verse 16? It is showing that the men that were in leadership (principalities and powers), having been shown to be insubordinate and that were subsequently unseated, do not have any authority to rule in matters of scriptural observance. (Mat.21:23-46) We are warned again to “Let no man judge” us BECAUSE of what Y’shua did to prove the absurdity of the religious leaders’ ideas of what constituted obedience in these areas. YHWH’s scriptural observances are not to be contaminated or replaced by man’s worldly principles, traditions and philosophies. We are to adhere to the “wisdom and knowledge” of Messiah and YHWH.
The Jewish “principalities and powers” had added many commandments of men to the “knowledge of YHWH.” Y’shua had made these authorities look like fools in reprimanding them about their ideas… especially concerning food and drink, and Sabbaths…not to mention many other topics. He truly “triumphed over them” in a very public and humiliating way in these confrontations. Thus we read, “…neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.” (Mat.22:46) Though He rebuked the “principalities and powers” concerning their manmade rules, He continued to keep Torah perfectly and He did not teach His disciples to do anything differently than He was doing. He sanctified Himself by keeping YHWH’s commandments and expected this lifestyle, void of manmade additions, to be the sanctification of His disciples and the sanctification of those that would believe through their word. (John 17:17-20) He did not come to make the law void. (Mat. 5:17-19) He did not die an agonizing death in our place because of our transgressions of YHWH’s perfect law, just to allow us to continue in transgression of YHWH’s instructions. He came to give us a new start, a new spirit, a new heart, along with the ability to obey YHWH.
We also should not to listen to the manmade ideas of modern religious, even Christian, men in regard to how to, or whether to, keep YHWH’s feasts, new moons and Sabbaths...which happen to be part of YHWH’s perfect Torah...His oracles…His basic principles/rudiments. We are to cast down the arguments/imaginations of men that are contrary to the straight forward commands of scripture. When we submit to man’s ideas, instead of to the teaching of scripture, we are beguiled of our reward for obedience. So the exhortation stands…we are not to be intimidated into adhering to man’s additions to or subtractions from YHWH’s commandments. (Deut. 4:2; 12:32) “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey…” (Rom. 6:16) Basically, we serve, and are thus sanctified (set apart) to the one whose ideas we accept and practice. Our loyalties reveal to us our hearts’ secrets that might otherwise go unnoticed because of our hearts’ deceitful ways. (Jer. 17:9) “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” (1 Cor. 7:23)
To be continued.
Continued from above.
ReplyDelete17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
The Greek behind this verse has some interesting nuances. First, the holy days and Sabbaths to which this verse refers ARE shadows. It does not say “were shadows” as if these things are to be relegated to the past. It does not say, “These things are mere shadows” or “are only shadows.” Second, there is no “is” in the Greek in this verse. This is shown by it being in italics in the KJV. Paul is speaking of “the body of Messiah,” just as this phrase is translated throughout the rest of scripture. He is not saying that “the substance (or reality) is of (or belongs to) Christ.” The Greek word for “body” simply and only means “body” not “substance” or “reality.” Third, the word “but” is a Greek word that can as easily be translated “and.” This becomes mandatory when the translators’ added “is” is removed. Some translators, translating in a way that supports their preconceived ideas, take unjustified liberties when rendering this verse. The KJV comes the closest to the Greek, but still has the two small problems listed above. A literal translation would read, “Which are a shadow of things to come and the body of Messiah.”
So, the holy days and Sabbaths are prophetic celebrations of future encounters of YHWH with the body of Messiah. They are rehearsals of our betrothal and wedding to Messiah and our anniversaries, so to speak. They are shadows of us, as Messiah’s body, and what will happen to us or with us in the future. We know from other passages in scripture that the celebrations of YHWH are commemorations of His dealings with His people in the past, but Paul gives us this second reason to “respect” or keep these holy days. There is a consistent pattern in the storyline of scripture that demonstrates how YHWH shows up on these exact days to interact with His chosen people…His bride…His body. Y’shua was sacrificed on Passover, ascended as the First Fruits from the dead on the exact holy day, and poured His Spirit out on Pentecost. The fall feast days are also pictures of Messiah’s redemptive work. Though these days commemorate other past interactions, we evidently, according to Paul, still have future fulfillments to look forward to and to celebrate.
The Jewish “principalities and powers” had added many traditions and commandments to the pure word of YHWH concerning the celebration of these set apart/holy days of YHWH. This may well be the reason that their Messiah and His fulfillment of these days were obscured from their sight. They had made them into Jewish holidays instead of keeping them as YHWH’s holy days. This would be a good reason not to let men and their ideas be our guide/judge of how to “respect” these days. When we are true to the scriptures regarding these days, we maintain them in the holy status that they were designed to hold. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” (Exod. 20:8) “Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.” (Lev. 23:2)
To be continued below.
Continued from above.
ReplyDelete“And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mat. 22:1-14) It would not be good to miss out on our rehearsal dinners, so to speak, and not have our wedding garments ready to go. Let’s not be too busy with our own things to celebrate with our King and keep our anniversary dates with Him. Let’s not be beguiled of our reward.
Shalom
Jeff, I'll take a stab at answering your question.
ReplyDelete1Cor. 8:8 This refers to meat offered to idols. From Paul's understanding, what was considered unclean in the Torah would not have even been on the radar as it did not meet the definition of meat.
1Cor. 10:31-32 Same as above
Mark 7:2 Jesus was referring to the traditional laws of the Jews, not the Torah.
Mark 7:15-19 Had Jesus told them that it was okay to eat pork they would have crucified him right there. They were trying hard to find anything they could to accuse him of. If he would have said that the law of Moses was done away with he not only would have been put to death earlier, but he would not have perfectly fulfilled the law and as such could not have been the perfect lamb without spot or wrinkle.
Col 2:14 Jeff, do you really think that beastiality was wrong in the Torah but, Thank God, he removed that ordinance so I could do what I wanted? He took our sentence of "death" for us.
Col 2:16 They lived in a world which had a god for everything (think of Pauls sermon on Mars Hill) and holydays for various gods. THis is not Paul changing what YHWH said was to be observed in perpetuity.
Concerning rest, I don't know if you are reading what Bo and Mike have written or not, but I think your question has been well answered unless you just choose not to hear.
I would like to remind everyone of the original purpose of this blog:
As we seek to sharpen each other , 2 Timothy 3:16 says," All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".
Rev. 22 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
This is to great of a promise to take a chance with trying to get God to see it my way.
All, also I would like the exchanges which are prompted by this blog to take place on the blog as it seems almost like Proverbs 16:28 "and a whisperer separates the best of friends" when it moves off into personal emails. Be ready to offer a defense of your understanding of scripture, but don't just keep asking the same question over and over like maybe the answer will change. What seems to be the problem is seminary teaching that is held as inviolable. May God's word never be held hostage to man's private interpretation.
Sid
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteGalatians is about the difference between trying to be justified by keeping the law or by faith in Y'shua. Galatians is not saying to not do what Torah says to do. It is saying that it is impossible to be justified by keeping the law. It is not saying that the law is wrong or that it tells us things that we should not do. The law is not against YHWH's promises. We needed a savior because we had broken the Torah. Torah tells us what is right to do.
Galatians 2
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 5
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
The ones that have fallen from grace are the ones that are trusting in their works for justification. The ones that keep torah because they are justified by faith in Messiah are have not fallen from grace. There is no need of grace if the law is not in effect. Where there is no law, there is no sin.
Shalom
Thank you, I have much to study now. I appreciate that very much. I hope to understand your position better.
ReplyDeleteBo, my apologies on the weak answers I have given. For now, most of them that asked if I knew things. The answer is no, I don't know those answers.
Again, I hope to return soon, but it may also be awhile.
God bless,
jeffh
Bo, have read some (not all 10 pages yet - remember, I am SLOW)
ReplyDeleteGreat points on Context, context, context - you and I must have went to the same Seminary (Hermenuetics 101) - ha kidding
You are correct on Mark 7:2.
On Mark 7:15-22, you said pork is not considered food. Could you help me with a scripture on that? I am curious, because why would they eat it, then if it wasn't food?
Thanks, Bo jeffh
Bo, I got through your read on Col 2:17. I like what you have to say about it saying are, not was. That is helpful for me.
ReplyDeleteOne correction, though. You said the Greek does not have "is" in this verse. It does. Here it is:
17α εστιν σκια των μελλοντων το δε σωμα του χριστου
Estin is there. At least in four Greek manuscripts I checked. But, do you mean another part of the verse? Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying here.
thanks, jeffh
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteThe Jewish people call anything that is not specified as food by YHWH in Torah, trief...not edible...not food.
The passage in Mark is written by and about Jews. The Torah gives the specifics of what is and is not food. Mark says, "by this he declared all food clean" in reference to eating without going through the Pharisaic ritual of using a 2 handled cup to wash our hands with before eating. Mark would not include swine, shark and salamanders in his definition of food.
Leviticus 11
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
To be continued.
Continued from above,
ReplyDelete18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
24 And for these ye shall be unclean: whosoever toucheth the carcase of them shall be unclean until the even.
25 And whosoever beareth ought of the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.
26 The carcases of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not clovenfooted, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.
27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
See also (Deut. 14:1-21; Isa. 66:15-17)
Shalom
Thank you, Bo. I'll add those verses to my notes.
ReplyDeleteGod bless jh
Jeff,
ReplyDelete17α εστιν σκια των μελλοντων το δε σωμα του χριστου
I was saying that there is no "is" in the last part that some translators render "the body (is) of Christ." The phrase "σωμα του χριστου" should be translated like it is throughout the New Testament, "body (no "is") of Christ." The passage is not saying that the festivals are shadows but the reality is Messiah. It is saying that the festivals are shadows of things to come and they are shadows of the body of Messiah. They are telling a story about us and our future as it pertains to YHWH's redemption plan.
Shalom
That is what I thought, sounds good. I am about half way done reading your stuff. Probably won't get back to it till next week. I do appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, on a somewhat related note - which might be refreshing.
Speaking of Estin. 1 Cor 11:24 uses "is" - estin - . Do you take that literally?
24και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
Not trying to introduce a debate; I am genuinely curious about your thinking or the thinking from your theology.
Also in Matt 26:26 -τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου
thanks, jeffh
There are several uses of this word I would point to where the "is" is used as if to say this "represents"....
ReplyDeleteMatt 5:34,35;6:21;11:14,16;12:50
No, Y'shua's actual blood and flesh are not consumed in the Passover feast/communion. The elements represent his shed blood and body. It is a huge violation of Torah to eat human flesh, not split hooves or cud chewing.
This will keep Jews from ever believing in Him. He would never have done that - Presupp.
Interesting. thanks.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate your recognition of presupps.
And importance of "context" for that matter.
jeffh
Jeff and I talked about this in an email. What do the rest of you think?
ReplyDeleteIs uncleanness to be understood as being in a state of sin?
If I am unclean, what does that mean?
How many ways are there to get unclean?
Are paths to uncleanness all sinful?
What is "mass" all about. Is it Bible? I am especially thinking of the mass in Christmas.
ReplyDeleteJust because you are unclean does not mean you are in sin. A woman on her period is unclean but its not a sin. But sometimes sin does lead to being unclean. Like eating something that's not kosher. Its a sin and you become unclean.
ReplyDeleteShalom
Did God change the food laws after the flood?
ReplyDeletejh
Could He have done it again in the New Testament?
ReplyDeletejh
He could, but He didn't.
DeleteGod changed it after the flood and there was no doubt because "HE" said it. To read some different meaning into what one of the NT writers (not YHWH) wrote reflects a misunderstanding of scripture.
ReplyDeleteSid
Did Noah know the difference between "clean" and "unclean" before he was allowed to eat meat?
ReplyDeleteGen 6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
ReplyDeleteNoah knew what was food for himself and for the animals. How did he know that?
Gen 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean. When did he learn that? Where is it written?
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
ReplyDeleteGen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Where did the knowledge they were accountable for come from? In the next couple for verses Cain is told to "do well" and he would be accepted. He was to change and conform to something that is not written in the scriptures. The rules are in force but not written. That is puzzling(?)
It would seem that man had eaten animals from shortly after being expelled from the garden of Eden, because we find Abel presenting a firstling offering. We know from torah that firstling offerings are to be eaten by the owner with a portion going to the priest, which in this case was YHWH. (Gen. 4:4)
ReplyDeleteWe also see that Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals, as he is charged with collecting 2 pairs of unclean ones and 7 pairs of clean ones. The classification of clean and unclean is used in reference to the animal flesh that we are allowed to eat. (Gen. 7:2)
There is no statement in the "New Testament" that would undo the clean and unclean laws concerning animal flesh. If Y'shua had taught his disciples that it was permitted to eat swine or vultures or slugs, the apostles appear to be unaware of it as late as Acts chapter 10, which is about 10 years after Messiah's resurrection. This is where we find Peter stating that he had never eaten anything unclean...and he obviously thought that it would be wrong to do so.
Acts 10
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
The vision that Peter had shook him up. He was perplexed precisely because he knew that it would be wrong to eat an unclean animal. The interpretation of his vision was that he should not automatically presume a gentile to be unclean. There is no record of Peter of any other believer eating unclean animal flesh in the "New Testament." YHWH is "no respecter of persons." Those that fear Him (believe in Him) and work righteousness (Defined in Torah) will be accepted by Him...Jew or Gentile.
Revelation 18
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
In Revelation we find that there are still unclean animals according to YHWH. If He had made the unclean to be clean, He would not continue to call them unclean, as that would be doing what He told Peter not to do if the interpretation of Peter's vision was really in reference to unclean animals being cleansed.
It is obvious by Peter's actions that neither the teaching of Y'shua or the Holy Spirit declared unclean animals to be clean. We must take the interpretation given by YHWH to be what the vision was supposed to convey. Namely, that we are not to presume any man to be unclean.
To use Peter's vision to prove that YHWH has now permitted the eating of unclean animal flesh is the same as using the dream that the chief baker had to prove that we should all wear baskets with pastries in them as hats so that birds will not starve. (Gen.40:16-19) Would we try to prove that since skinny cows can eat fat cows without gaining weight, we should consider well marbled beef to be zero calories. (Gen. 41)
Let's just accept the interpretations that YHWH has been so kind to include in the scriptures.
Shalom
Thanks. good responses.
ReplyDeleteSounds like we all at least agree that YWHW can and did make every moving thing food for them.
Gen 9:3, "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give it all to you, as I gave the green plant".
jeffh
Jeff
DeleteI don't think he gave them every moving thing that lives as food. Humans were off limits! Even though we move and we are alive.
Barrett:
DeleteGood point. Not humans. Context = verse 2 refers to animals / beasts
jeffh
every green plant? not every some are poison. just as the green herb? not every green herb, not every animal....HMMMM?
DeleteHello everyone, especially Bo and Barrett, and thanks for sending me the link, Barrett. This is your housemate from Pisgat Ziev, and am new to the blog.
ReplyDeleteI finally got around to reading through this thread last night, and have enjoyed the discussion. I think this could become a great tool for us to encourage, sharpen, and strengthen us who love YHWH's instructions, but could just as easily become a place where some will continue to question us and we just end up arguing, so I pray it is the former.
I have a question for those of you who truly desire to guard Torah. I was wondering what your thoughts are on the role and need of circumcision today? In Rom 2:25,26 Shaul says;
'For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?'
Since we all have broken Torah, does this imply circumcision is of no value to us? If someone that is not circumcised guards Torah as best he can, does he not need to 'worry' about circumcision? Seems no one could eat the Passover meal that wasn't circumcised, and he could not enter the temple either; but now that their isn't a temple, does it matter? And some say that only blood Jewish people need to be circumcised, but those who can't prove a blood tie that are grafted in don't need to be??? Shaul didn't compel Titus to be circumcised, but was that for that specific situation for a time while those of the 'circumcision' were there trying to convince the people of the need to be circumcised to be saved and Shaul didn't want to give some the impression that he was doing the same? What are your thoughts?
Hey Paul! Good to hear from you.
ReplyDeleteI think that the commandment of circumcision is just as valid today as it was in Avraham's day, Moshe's day and Yeshua's day.
What Shaul is addressing is people who boast in keeping the Torah. Rom 2:23 What he is saying is how can you judge someone and condemn them to Hell for not getting circumcised(which is a sin)when you yourself break the Torah(sin).
As you pointed out no one could eat the Passover(What most Christians call the Lord's Supper) without being circumcised. There was not a Temple in our father Avraham's day, but still YHWH insisted that all our males be circumcised. The people that say it only applies to Jews by blood must have never read Gen 17:12-13. If even a slave of the house of Avraham had to be circumcised. How much more an adopted son?
I think you hit the nail right on the head concerning Titus not being circumcised. I would assume that Titus got circumcised before the next Passover.
I talk about this on the grafted in thread on this blog. If you want to go look at it.
Shalom
Shabbat Shalom everyone. Thanks for the response Barrett and reminder to read the other posts. I obviously hadn't done that yet. I am almost finished. I'm sorry I tried to rehash an older discussion. I was wondering why no one was saying anything. I've enjoyed the discussions
ReplyDeletePaul
DeleteNo problem. Don't be sorry about bringing up older discussions. I would like to hear what you think of circumcision.
Shabbat Shalom
Jeff
ReplyDeleteYour right. We need to pay attention to context. Noach knew more about Torah than people realize. He knew what animals are clean and unclean. Gen 7:2,7:8 He also knew how to build an altar and offer burnt offerings. Gen 8:20 I don't think he would know about the laws of clean and unclean animals and just ignore them. But lets say he did for the sake of discussion. It does not change anything for us, because Moshe gave us the dietary laws. Now people say that the dietary laws were only for Israel. Noach was a Gentile so that's why they did not apply to him. They argue that Gentiles today are the same. If that is true then Gentiles today could marry their sisters or aunts. After all Noach and his descendants were allowed to marry their sisters and aunts. Gen 20:12,Exd 6:20 These unions were not condemned until Sinai. Lev 18:9,18:11-13 Of course according to the logic above this only applies to the Jews. they can not get around it. If a Gentile can eat pork, he can marry his sister. But if a Gentile can not marry his sister, he can not eat pork. Because the body of law that said not to marry your sister also said to the same people not to eat pork. So you see even if you are right that Noach could eat pork, he could also marry his sister. But the Torah condemns both. Why would Lev chapter 18 apply to both Gentile and Jew but Lev chapter 11 only applies to Jews? It does not make any sense!
Shabbat Shalom
Go Barrett Go. Hello Paul.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add that Herod was not a Jew, but John the baptist upbraided him for marrying his brother's wife. So we see that a Jewish prophet condemned the Torah breaking of a non-Jew.
ReplyDeleteThere is a reason why Jews would not enter Gentile's houses...they assumed that they were sinners, which means law breakers, and did not want to become unclean by eating or associating with them. This rule of theirs is not found in Torah, but tells us how they thought about it. John was a Jew that was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb. I think that he judged righteous judgment.
If we can marry our brother's wife or our sister or aunt, we can eat pork. If not, then not.
I is about holiness...without which no man shall see YHWH. (Heb. 12:14)
Leviticus 11
44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
Leviticus 19
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
YHWH has brought us out of Egypt and does not want us doing the things that they did. Holiness means that we are different in the ways that YHWH's word describes.
1 Corinthians 16
13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
Quit ye like men.
Shalom
Bo, aren't there some laws in the Levitical code (I think Lev 18:26) where it is explicitly clear these laws apply to more than just Israel? Other parts we don't see that specific command.
ReplyDeletejeffh
Jeff
ReplyDeleteGood point! I guess that means that a stranger should keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Exd 12:18 In the first [month], on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.
Exd 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a STRANGER, or born in the land.
That also means that a stranger should observe the Shabbat day!
Exd 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the Shabbat of YHWH thy Elohim: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy STRANGER that [is] within thy gates:
Exd 23:12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the STRANGER, may be refreshed.
A stranger is also required to keep Yom Kippur(Day of Atonement)!
Lev 16:29 And [this] shall be a statute for ever unto you: [that] in the seventh month, on the tenth [day] of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, [whether it be] one of your own country, or a STRANGER that sojourneth among you:
Also the stranger should keep the entire Torah!
Deut 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy STRANGER that [is] within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear YHWH your Elohim, and observe to do ALL the words of this TORAH:
Shalom
Barret:
ReplyDeleteAgreed, sort of.
Passover in Ex 12. Apostle John, Jesus IS the Passover Lamb. That is why John records it on Thursday - Day of Preparation for the Passover. Jesus is crucified.
Then, to Matt, Mark, Luke - days are from a different calendar.
Historical versus Theological.
We do celebrate the Feast through the Lord's supper as oft as we drink of it.
Duet 31:18 - Feast of Booths a foreshadowing of Pentecost. Birth of the church.
Holy Spirit comes to Cornelius in Acts APART from circumcision. We no longer need the symbol because the real thing showed up.
This is the point of the whole book of Hebrews. No temple needed. Jesus has done ALL of what the Temple did.
Handling of sin, sacrifice, atonement, etc. Now for all time. It is finished.
Christ has kept the law. We still follow moral laws because the food laws are for only me that show the distinction which is now unnecessary.
No benefit to being a Jew by blood. Only by faith like Cornelius becomes a Jew.
Moral law is different. I cannot make myself more right with God, so keeping this won't do it, but it has much use regarding my neighbor. I have the right God, I don't abuse His Name, and the rest are directed toward my fellowman.
Food laws, etc. are for us, not our neighbor.
Ceremonial and food laws change form and moral laws remain.
The food is merely the symbol, the day is a symbol, etc., until the real thing showed up.
Until the Seed came. Gal 3:19
So, I think we half agree. No law is abolished with my theology, but it is fulfilled.
We are now bound to Christ, not the external action of the law.
The apostles and church fathers go before me.
jeffh
jeffh
Shalom from Mount Gerizim in Israel.
ReplyDeleteJeff you said: “Duet 31:18 - Feast of Booths a foreshadowing of Pentecost. Birth of the church.”
Pentecost = Shavuot , Not Sukkot(Booths). OOPS. You got this one wrong, brother.
Jeff also said:
Holy Spirit comes to Cornelius in Acts APART from circumcision.
Cornelius was a God-fearer, righteous gentile. Are you sure he was uncirc? What does devout mean in Acts 10:2?
Thanks, Mike:
ReplyDeleteMy OT study is rusty. I think Feast of Booths begins 15th day of the Jewish calendar (fall) - is that correct?
I should have said, it is Lev. 23:15ff - Feast of weeks 50 days after weekly Sabbath following the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Later fulfillment at Pentecost. Same point of late fulfillment, though.
With Cornelius, perhaps an explicit conclusion cannot be drawn either way; I will look further -
thanks
jeffh
Also: Mike, etc. - Are we in congruence on the following:
ReplyDeletethere were two Sabbaths between Jesus’ death and resurrection – Mark 16:1 s one on Nisan 15, an annual Sabbath, then Luke 23:56, the women rested on Nisan 17 was the weekly Sabbath; and then, Matthew 28:1 is actually the “first of Sabbaths” Nisan 18 was the annual Sabbath following a seven week period ending at Pentecost.
I may need correction, but I want to be sure we are on the same factual page before I study further.
thanks, jeffh
Last one, then I will TRY to stop. Would we be in agreement that Jesus did NOT die on Friday. More likely Thursday on the Jewish Calendar? (Actually, Wednesday on Roman calendar) -
ReplyDeleteI am simply putting pieces together, not trying to argue anything at this point.
jeffh
Good morning from Alaska, and some new snow. Mike, its good to here you are at Mount Gerizim. Good view isn't it? Is the whole family there?
ReplyDeleteJeff, my understanding is that Yeshua died Wednesday afternoon, prior to the start of Thursday(at sunset). Josheph and Nicodemus were concerned about getting Him off the tree prior to sunset because Shabbat would start then. It was the preparation day before the 'High' Shabbat of Unleavened bread which would start on the 15th of Nissan. That is the first Shabbat. Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:42. I also believe He died quickly, to the surprise of Pilot, because Torah(YHWH's instructions on how to live) states letting someone hang on a tree after sunset would defile the land. Deut. 21:23. That left another weekly Shabbat on Saturday before He rose on Firstfruits. This is the second Shabbat. This allowed the ladies to buy spices on Friday to bring to the tomb, since they couldn't have purchased them on the Shabbats. This timing allows for being in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights, as the accounts state, and were foreshadowed by Jonah. (I also believe He would have rose shortly after sunset on Roman Saturday, or He would have spent 4 nights in the tomb. He did not rise at sunrise Sunday. He was gone when Mary came to the tomb before sunrise. John 20:1)
I really think an issue in this discussion is; what are the Feasts of YHWH, which He says are His Feasts? Lev 23:1. The Hebrew word used for Feast as it is translated in my NKJV, is moed. (mô‛êd From H3259; properly an appointment, that is, a fixed time or season;) So, here we go. Did the chicken or the egg come first? Did YHWH make these times 'appointments' after He did something like Shabbat, Passover, etc. or did He establish these times as 'appointments' and then do certain things on those days? Since we know He chose us before the foundation of the world, Eph 1;4, would it be a stretch to believe He established His 'appointments' before the foundation on the world? Do these 'appointed days' then cease being 'appointments' as soon as YHWH does something on that day, or are they always the 'appointed days'? Ez 45:18-25 describes these 'appointments' during the kingdom reign of Yeshua on what appears to be the same days they were for Moshe. Do we then think they aren't 'appointments' today, and maybe we should at least acknowledge them, instead of pick different days to 'worship' the Lord, such as good Friday, Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, etc. Oh, I guess since the spring feasts have been 'fulfilled' we can change them. Maybe if we studied the 'Old Testament' more, we would understand these things, and might even have a much better understanding of what will happen on YHWH's fall 'appointments' of Trumpets, Atonement, Booths. Maybe we would have a better grip on the prophesies that haven't been fulfilled yet, instead of all the crazy ideas that we see being published out there that are totally divorced from any Scriptural foundation. He declares the end from the beginning, Is 46:10, so I think we need to look to the beginning of His word for our foundation, instead of assuming Paul establishes the foundation.
Barrett, I still plan on getting back to you on the circumcision topic, but haven't gotten my thoughts together in a printable format yet.
Shaloam
I meant Shalom. I need a proof reader for everything I guess.
DeleteA quick thought on Cornelius. I don't think it matters if he was circumcised. That isn't what makes us acceptable to YHWH. That is one thing Shaul was addressing.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteActually, Y'shua died on Wednesday according to either calendar, on Passover day. Late in the day as the sun was setting. The new scriptural day started shortly after He was removed from the tree. This new day would have been the first day of unleavened bread which is a rest day. Then the day after this would have been a work day and also the 2nd day of unleavened bread (Friday). Then the weekly Sabbath followed. The next day (Sunday) was the firstfruits offering and the first day on the count of 50 days to get to Shavuot/Pentecost. This first day of the week during the feast of unleavened bread was the day that Y'shua ascended to the Father as the firstfruits from the dead. Y'shua was in the grave exactly 3 days and nights, so he was alive again and out of the grave very shortly before dark when the 1st day of the week would have begun.
So Messiah died on Pesakh/Passover, was dead three full days. Ascended to the Father on habikurim/firstfruits, 50 days later He was taken up to heaven on Shavuot/Pentecost.
1st day of unleavened bread Sabbath
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
They rested a Sabbath then bought spices then prepared the spices then rested another Sabbath.
Regular Sabbath
Luke 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
They got to the tomb before the first day of the week, just before nighttime.
Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Early the first day of the week He is seen and doesn't want to be touched until after He ascends to the Father.
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Any other time frame would not have Y'shua in the grave 3 days and nights as He prophesied.
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
I am pretty sure that Mike is in agreement with me on this. Hopefully he will have time to post again.
Shalom
Bo,
DeleteAm I missing something? I thought He continued with them 40 days and told them to remain in Jerusalem and wail for the Promise of the Father. Acts 1:1-4. Then He ascended. That wouldn't have been on Shavuot, would it?
I agree except for 40 days he walked with disciples, then 10 more days is pentecost. Already corrected.
Deleteamen. WTG Paul
Good job Paul. You barely beat me to the punch.
ReplyDeleteShalom
You post was not there when I started answering :-)}>
DeleteYes, I noticed that we must have been typing at the same time. My beard is getting longer, so I'll have to try the ending:-)}> I enjoy reading your posts.
DeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteI misspoke. He sent the spirit on Shavuot/Pentecost. Thanks for the correction.
Shalom
Jeff
ReplyDeleteAre you really saying that Yochanan(John) sacrificed historical accuracy in order to make a theological point! I strongly disagree with you if that is your opinion! I firmly believe all the gospels to be Historically accurate in every way! I believe that Yochanan was above altering history because it made his position look better!
The feast of Sukkot(tabernacles) is a foreshadowing of Yeshua's millennial reign. Not Pentecost. Pentecost was foreshadowed by the feast of Pentecost. Which is an OT Feast. Lev23:15-21 Pentecost is the Greek name for the Feast of Shavuot(Weeks). You say that the Church was born on Pentecost in Acts. That's not true. According to Steven in Acts7:37-38 Moshe was with the Church in the wilderness! That means that the Church could not have been born in NT times. Unless you believe that Steven was altering history to make a theological point as well.
Of course Cornelius received the Ruach HaQodesh(Holy Spirit) before circumcision. But how is that different from OT times? Avraham was chosen, like Cornelius without circumcision. I don't see how that proves that circumcision no longer needs to be observed. And why in the thousand year reign of Yeshua will Gentiles not be allowed to approach the Sanctuary without being circumcised in the flesh? Eze44:9
The Temple was never needed for forgiveness of sins. Hbr 10:4 The Saints of of the OT were saved by the blood of Yeshua as much as we are. So why was it a good idea for them to have sacrifices, but not us? You said "Now for all time. It is finished." Then why do the sacrifices get reinstated during Yeshua's thousand year reign? Eze 44:29-31
Apparently they are not as finished as you think.
I'm glad to hear that you believe that a Gentile like Cornelius can become an Israelite through faith. It seems obvious to me that once a Gentile becomes an Israelite all the commandments that apply to Israel would also apply to that individual. Because he is no longer a stranger! So it sounds like your argument that there are commands for an Israelite believer that a Gentile believer does not have to keep is moot. Because when a Gentile comes to faith he becomes an Israelite. 1Cor 12:2,Eph 2:11-12, 2:19
continued below
continued from above
ReplyDeleteWhere do you see a distinction in Scripture, between the moral aspects of the Torah and the ceremonial aspects of the Torah? I'm just curious. It does not change anything, because Shaul in an effort to show that he was not teaching that any part of the Torah was no longer applicable. Took a Nazerite vow(a strictly ceremonial part of the Torah). He was cleansed in the Temple(another strictly ceremonial part of the Torah) and paid for four other brothers to to be cleansed in the Temple as well.Acts 21:20-26 And he did this long after the Seed came and was killed, buried, resurrected and ascended to Heaven. So you must be misunderstanding Gal 3:19
You say that the apostles and church fathers go before you. But according to Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus
“We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows: “I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Master Yeshua.” Eusebius of Caesarea
Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 24
When was the last time you kept the Passover on the 14th day of Aviv, like all those men listed above did? Are you sure that they go before you? Because it does not look like you are following them.
Shalom
Barret,
ReplyDeleteI'm here to learn not argue. To sharpen my sword, not throw rocks.
I'll copy this and study and return later.
thanks, jeffh
Jeff
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if I offended you. Please believe me when I say I'm not trying to throw rocks at anybody. People that know me know that I can be quite tactless at times. This is one of my greatest faults. I need to learn to be more sensitive to others. Especially when it comes to faith issues! So again, I'm sorry if I offended you. Please forgive my poor choice of words.
Shalom
We all study the things that are important to us. We are at fault if we only look for the answer we want. Truth lives on. All scripture is useful for gaining our doctrine and all our practices of belief and corrections and rebukes.
ReplyDeleteThere are so called church fathers that did a lot of things + or - the Truth. You can find an example in history to prove any point. Let me know about the apostles that went before us. According to the Bible, The Sabbath is the 7th day, The New moon starts the month, The feasts remain, Jerusalem is Jerusalem, Y'shua is the King. And we are brought near to these things by His blood.
Important things get redefined in this land and many of you know. Now I am in the camp at Psagot, outside Jerusalem, Near ancient ruins of Ai. A temple will be built for the King and Wine and Lambs will be needed. for the sacrifices at the altar for daily, weekly, monthly, annual celebrations.