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.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Grafted in?
What does the term grafted in mean? Is it necessary or not?
In Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:24, Jesus makes it very clear whom He was sent to. The lost sheep of the house of Israel. Paul says, Jew or Gentile, doesn't matter. (Galations 3:28) Is he contradicting our Savior? I don't think so. I think that God answered this question long before, when He told Abraham that a stranger could enter into His covenant if he jumped through the same hoop of circumcision as Abraham's seed. Circumcision (as the means of entering into covenant with God) we know was replaced with verbally entering into covenant with Jesus Christ. **(Rom. 3:27-31)** Romans 11:13-24 is the best discourse on being grafted in. Who is the "wild branches"? Who is the "natural branches"? What are your thoughts?
I would have to agree with Grace. This was a command of Jesus at this point but a person also has to take into account the "Great Commission". Something along the lines of "Go into ALL the world and take the gospel to EVERY creature." Matt 28:19.
In the discussion about Abraham check out Galatians 4:21-31? Is this a picture of those "Under the law" and those not?
An IN-DEPTH study of Romans 7 is very interesting. How is it that we "Died with Christ"? What does this mean in terms of following the "Old Testament" Law or being led in the Spirit following the "Law that He has WRITTEN on our hearts?
Again. I have found this to be VERY helpful in understanding this WHOLE topic.
It was Jesus sending the discipes to the lost sheep of the house of Israel in Matt. 10:6, but in Matt. 15:24 Jesus said "he" was not sent but unto the "lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Jordan, you left off the end of the Great Commission. The last part which we don't hear quoted nearly as often is "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
The only resource they would have had to find out "all things" would have been the Old Testament, as the New Testament did not exist. And Jesus would have demonstrated living out the whole law perfectly as otherwise he could not have been the perfect lamb, without spot or wrinkle. So by "word " and "action" he showed us the law and fulfilled it by living it out perfectly.
The question I have is, which part of what God said is "very good" do we not want to consider good?
Sid. In the end of the great commission, Christ says "..Whatsoever things *I* have commanded you..". My question would be this. Did Jesus just "rehash" the teachings of the old testament? or was He telling them to observe the things that He commanded them while he was there?
To say that the only resource they had was the Old Testament would be to say that Christs teachings while He was with them were for nothing. Obviously this is not the case. I believe that Jesus allowed us to learn more about Himself (God) then all of the old testament would have.
II Cor 5:15? Did Christ die only for the Jews? Not according to this passage.
I would take a close CLOSE look at II Cor 3. Here are a couple verses to ponder. Please let me know if I have taken them out of context, or if they are somehow irrelevant.
Please read II Cor 3: 7-18. I would love to type it out and explain it but that would take up too much space on this blog.
Back on topic about being grafted in.... John 15:5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. It is my understanding that a person is "grafted in" when he "Abides in Christ and Christ in him". Jew or Gentile? Doesn't matter according to this passage.
What is the purpose of being "Grafted in"? I would have to say it is to "Bear Fruit" .
Mark_4:20 “And those sown on good soil, are those who hear the WORD, and ACCEPT it, and bear fruit, some thirtyfold, and some sixty, and some a hundred.”
Orrin, Are you sure you mean that "circumcision is replaced by verbally..." from your post on 2-2-12? Replaced? What else did Y'shua replace? Now either these commands you defend stand or they don't.
What are we grafted into? A root of an olive tree.
Baptism is what I have heard the church says replaces circumcision according to the Reform movement. I don't think commandments can be replaced.
An interesting word study is the word "forever". check it out and then relate it to "perpetual", or "continual" covenant.
Circumcision is still the sign that a man has chosen YHWH. Paul said many things that are hard to understand without fully being immersed in the torah. Circumcision is not required for salvation. It is an act of obedience.
We are justified by faith alone. The works worthy of repentance, or that which is according to the law should not be confused with that which brings salvation. Abraham entered the kingdom of heaven just like you and Me. By Faith. See ch 11 of Hebrews. Enoch, Noah, Sarah, Joseph, etc... There is no new way to get saved. It was always by faith. Luk_3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance,... In verse 9 and following repentance is shown in "works" - the things we do. Baptism and circumcision are signs from of old times; signs of beginning the path with the Creator.
Jordan, on 1-3-12 you quoted Yahshua and said all the things "I" have commanded you, but is Yahshua not the same as YHWH, so if you believe that YHWH and Yahshua are the same, how could their commandments be different. I think Yahshua came to reiterate the laws, if He;s the same yesterday, today, forever. how could he have His people just STOP keep HIS Law,
Mike, Thanks for the correction. I am relooking at this topic tonight and I'm wondering what your thoughts are on why Paul in Gal.2:3 did not compel Titus to be circumcised. But in Acts 16:3 Paul circumcised Timothy. I had assumed that the issue dealt with Timothy's mother being a Jewess. And so for her to stay in covenant she needed to have her son circumcised. Whereas Titus' parents were both Greeks and he was entering into the covenant as a first generation. Thanks for your insight, Orrin
Orrin, good thought. A random idea I have related to this is "I thought there was no difference between jew and greek".
I want to respond to your question in layers. Here is level one of my response. I don't know if I will give level two or not.
Level One: Why does that matter? Can Paul make a decision about circumcision that would change anything on an eternal level?
I want to show that the Torah stands no matter what Paul or any one says or does.
On the other hand, The way Paul walks shows how he believed and behaved were equal. He did not believe one way and act a different way.
Okay I will give you level two. In the sequence of time, this occurs after Acts 15. So that which Jews required of non-Jew converts to this "jewish sect", the Way, were different than what they would have required from jewish born men.
Prior to this in the sequence of tiem in Acts 10:30 Cornelius was appeared to by a man that told him to call for Peter. When Peter went to see him and he believed, and his entire household, there was no circumcision.
Now, maybe Cornelius was already circumcised since he was a "devout man" Acts 10:2
In gal, eph, phil, col, thes, is there anywhere among the gentiles Paul requires anyone to get circumcised? I don't think so. Only Timothy.
So he did not teach the Torah. Or is it an argument from silence? I suppose Paul spent the rest of his life following the edict from the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
That has been covered but to state it plainly. Paul talked about conversion, and then taught the Torah along the way.
I think Timothy and Titus are both object lessons for Paul's preaching.
Thicken the pudding a bit, now. Can Jesus (Y'shua) do anything to change the eternal Law, the Torah of Moses?
I need to ask you to read the larger context. I am referring to Deut 13.
A prophet or dreamer that leads anyone away from the Torah is to be killed. Was Yashua killed because He was leading Israel away from the Truth of Torah according to this passage?
No! But has it been portrayed that way - both by jews and christians?
Consequently, could this perhaps be why the Jews don't believe in Yashua today as the Messiah that was to come? Have we portrayed Him as a Torah Breaker? As a false prophet?
Notice that all the charges brought against Yahshua in His trial were "false". What was he really guilty of? He was innocent, you say?
Mar 14:56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
Mat 26:59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
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.
The liars portrayed the Savior as one who came "to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in." from deut 13:5.
If Yashua and Paul were innocent then they did nothing to turn people away from YHWH or the way He commanded them to walk. The Messiah and an apostle, neither has a mark against them of breaking the torah.
In Acts 21:20-26 Paul was Falsely accused, too. What will be ther result if he is portrayed as a torah breaker? I wonder what his demise will be....
Topic! Grafted In? or Changed?
Changed is "rip it out and plant a new tree because the old one is dead".
Grafted in is "the roots of the tree are good but prune it and increase the fruiting"
Hey Bo and Mike, I wanted your input on a verse I read tonight Hebrews 7:12-16
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
What is being referred to when he talks about a change of the law? Can there be any change? Carter
My advice to you is that you study those things in the Torah pertaining to this topic before trying to understand the deep thing that is talked about here in Heb 7. A pattern has been set in the last few hundred years to only know the Apostles writings deeply. Part of the "paradigm shift" for me was I needed to admit I knew very little about the Law I was "free" from. There is a lot of teaching in Exodus and Leviticus about the priesthood and sacrifice and atonement for sin. That part is still very Important.
How can anyone truly understand Hebrews with out knowing the background that the "Hebrews" to whom it was written knew very well.
I notice in the intro of the book esp 1:4,1;8 this Son is very different from all the rest of creation. This Son is not exactly created. We know that The Father and The Son are one and the same.(John 10:38) (some day this blog will deal with ideas surrounding the "trinity" that will be enlightening)
Okay...Here is something of an answer to your question...
The (1)priesthood changed. Our great High Priest is Y'shua,
He is greater than the rule that the priest is out of Aaron. However, a close look at Y'shua's lienage will show He is eligible for Priesthood and King.
The idea of Malchi-Zadec, King of Righteousness is another great persuit. Maybe he was pre-incarnate Y'shua or maybe he was Shem or some one else- regardless-- Melchisedec is before Mt Sinai and the giving of the Law. However the Law was being fulfilled, done,in the giving of and receiving of tithes and offerings.
The other (2)change is that there is not a daily sacrifice, not a need for the priest to sacrifice for himself and the people to atone for sin. No continual sacrificial animal on the alter.
High Priest only does this on Yom Kippur every year... Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
That is differen than the Law requires but Messiah did it once for all. still fulfilled the requirement. I call you back to Matthew's Gospel. Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I see this as though nothing is passed away, but the savior fulfilled the role of priest once and for all. The Law remains that atonement is Needed. The change in the Law is that the one requiring the price of atonement is the one who paid the price for said needed atonement.
Praise Him for that. Does that help? it will have to do until Bo jumps in tomorrow.
I have always loved the book of Hebrews. I was studying it when I met my wife : )}> I am always amazed at the depth of truth that we can glean from it. It is a book that is difficult to understand without knowing the Law and the Prophets. It is difficult to grasp when we know the Law and the Prophets. That is one reason why I think that Paul wrote it. Peter says that Paul is misunderstood and that the unstable (those without the foundational truths of the Tanakh) twist what Paul writes to their own destruction becoming law breakers. Hebrews fits the ticket. And if Paul did not write it, the unstable also twist the other scripture to their own destruction also. (2 Peter 3:15-18)
The letter to the Hebrews was written just a very little while before the destruction of the temple. It is a call to the Hebrew believers to start getting used to the fact that there will be no physical temple. It, along with the Levitical priesthood, is "about ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:13)
The whole middle part of Hebrews concerns the differences between the physical/shadow/Levitical priesthood and its "ordinaces of divine service" and "law" and the spiritual/eternal/Melchizedek preitsthood and its ordinances and law.
The law that is spoken of being changed is the sacrificial law. Of course, the reality is that the levitical law is not completely gone...it is just suspended until the Messianic kingdom on earth when the third temple will be rebuilt. There will be animal sacrifices to YHWH again. (Please read Ezekiel.) They will be a shadow just like they always were. The real and eternal sacrifice for sin is the Lamb of YHWH slain from the foundation of the earth.
Y'shua's sacrifice did not put a stop to the levitical priesthood and its offerings. The destruction of the temple did...temporarily. Paul even paid for offerings at the temple to prove that he still kept the law. He and the other apostles evidently did not think that the sacrifice of Y’shua did away with the temple offerings. (Acts 21:24)
The idea in the whole book of Hebrews is that the eternal things are much better than the temporary things. Better sacrifices, better hope, better covenant, better promises, etc. In a very big sense the book explains, or at least gives us glimpses into the eternal things. The eternal things always existed…even when the Levitical system required all sacrifices to be offered at the door of the tabernacle/temple, David and Elijah (at least) operated under the Melchizedek system, as they offered offerings that were accepted by YHWH that were not in accordance to the Levitical system.
The “change in the law” of sacrifices is not a new change. It actually existed from creation. The Levitical system came about because of the refusal of Israel to listen to YHWH for themselves and be YHWH’s kings and priests. After Israel asked for a mediator to listen for them, YHWH instituted the Levitical system as a type and shadow of the eternal system. This is why Moses was supposed to be very careful to build the tabernacle in precise detail to be a faithful representation of the heavenly tabernacle.
YHWH’s Torah/Law/Instructions in righteousness and holiness remain the same. The ordinances for sacrifice are different. This is why Paul can tell Timothy, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” concerning the “Old Testament” writings. (2 Tim.3:16-17) They are not replaced or changed. They are still our basic guidelines for righteousness, holiness and good works.
I want to let you know what I believe about two issues. So you know were I'm coming from.
1)I believe in salvation by grace through faith in Yeshua and his saving blood. Ephesians 2:8
2)I Believe even though we are not saved by keeping the Torah it is still our responsibility to live a sin free life as much as possible. Which means we should keep as much of the Torah as possible. For sin is the transgression of the Torah. 1John3:4
Now that you know where I'm coming from I would like to comment on circumcision and being grafted in to Israel.
Genesis 17:10-14 10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Notice that its the parents job to circumcise their son. But it is the son who gets punished for not being circumcised. This implies that he (the son) is expected to get circumcised himself when he is older even if his parents failed to do it themselves. I'm not even going to get in to what "cut off from his people" means. All I know is that it is bad. It applies to both Avraham's physical descendants and even his slaves. If even his slaves should be circumcised how much more his adopted sons.
Galatians 3:29 29And if you are of The Messiah, you are therefore the seed of Avraham and heirs by The Promise.
So, according to Shaul(Paul) if you believe in Yeshua you are an Israelite. And if your definition of Jew is an Israelite then if you believe in Yeshua you are a Jew.
When I look at these two passages I can not help but come to the conclusion that if you are an Israelite A.K.A. believer in Yeshua and you are not circumcised you are in sin.
Torah haters use Titus as an excuse to not keep a command of YHWH. They say that because Titus was not circumcised it means that the commandment of circumcision was done away with, even though YHWH said that the covenant of circumcision was an everlasting covenant. Some of them go so far as to say that if you get circumcised you are sinning. My question is, if it is a sin to get circumcised, then why in the world did Timothy get circumcised? Acts 16:1-3 Obviously it is not a sin to be circumcised or Timothy would not have been circumcised. As for Titus, lets look at the passage in question.
Galatians 2:1-5 1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Bar-Naba, and took Titus with me also.
2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Yeshua HaMashiach, that they might bring us into bondage:
5To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
So, why was Titus not circumcised? Fist Shaul says that Titus was not "compelled". One thing that we have to remember is that circumcision is like immersion(baptism) it is an outward sign of faith that is voluntary. That is if the parents failed to circumcise their son themselves. Circumcision like immersion should never be forced on somebody. Both are commands of YHWH. So as believers we should obey. Its absurd to try to force someone to be baptised and it is just as absurd to try to force someone to be circumcised. Shaul was not going to force Titus to be circumcised nor should he. Why was Titus not compelled? According to Shaul Titus was not compelled because of false brothers who wanted to put Titus into bondage.
So, how is it that Titus getting circumcised puts him into bondage but Timothy getting circumcised did not put him into bondage? It has nothing to do with Titus being a Gentile and Timothy being Jewish. Because Timothy having a Jewish mother at this time in Judaism meant nothing because they still traced their lineage through their fathers unlike today. That means that according to the Torah both Timothy and Titus were Gentiles physically. But on the other hand being how they were believers in Yeshua that makes both of them Israelites. So, take your pick either Shaul had a Gentile circumcised or he had an Israelite not get circumcised. So I ask again, how is it that Titus getting circumcised puts him into bondage but Timothy getting circumcised did not put him into bondage? The only thing that makes sense to me is that those false brothers from the book of Galatians believed that in order to be saved you had to be circumcised. Titus would never submit himself to such a circumcision of self-righteousness. And obviously Timothy was not trying to earn his salvation by getting circumcised. In short Titus was sending a message. It would be like if you went to a church and you were a believer but you had not been baptised yet, and the people in in this church said that you had to be baptised to be saved. What would you do? I would say that you should tell them to take a hike. You should go find fellowship with people that know that salvation is not by works that any man may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 To my knowledge Shaul never condemned circumcision in any of his writings. And for the sake of argument lets just say that he did condemn circumcision (he didn't by the way but if he did). We would have no other choice but to be like the Bereans and be willing to through out his writings if they don't agree with the Tanach. And for the record being anti-circumcision does not agree with the Tanach. Torah haters that use Titus as an excuse to shirk there responsibility assume that he never got circumcised ever. The text does not say that at all. I can just as easily assume that he did get circumcised later. The text does not say either way. Being how Titus would not have been able to eat the LORD'S supper aka passover without being circumcised, Exodus 12:48-49 I would assume that Titus did indeed get circumcised before passover. Oh no! Did I just base my opinion on what all of scripture says instead of just the book of Galatians. :)} How do you like the beard Bo? I hope this helps Tyler.
This is the day. Choose now or miss it. It is Preparation Day and this evening is the Sabbath.
It is great practice for things to come. This is a shadow of what the future holds. Choose now to enter His rest. You are all invited to my Sabbath Table tonight. Arrive just before the going down of the sun. We will lift up the cup and the bread and make b'rakah(blessing) just like Y'shua did when he fed thousands. We will feast on a fabulous meal my wife and daughters will prepare.
Will you join us to give thanks and bless YHWH who brings forth good things out of the earth?
It is a wonderful time as my wife and I and our ten children and our son's wife and my unborn-grandchild gather around our big table and laugh and talk about our favorite things that happened this week. We give praise and thanks to the one who gave us such great commandments to walk in.
Nothing legalistic, no one is tied up and forced to do anything. It is pure Joy to have this life,this family,These Mitzvot (commands).
You will probably like it so much you will want to do it at your house next week.
Hey Mike, I apologize for not posting more, but my computer had an issue and wouldn't allow me to access the blog for a while. I just got it fixed and can now participate. I have really been enjoying reading you gentlemen's thoughts and insights on the word of YHWH. Thank you for sharing your time and energy to help all of us (especially we young men) to learn and grow.
In Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:24, Jesus makes it very clear whom He was sent to. The lost sheep of the house of Israel. Paul says, Jew or Gentile, doesn't matter. (Galations 3:28) Is he contradicting our Savior? I don't think so. I think that God answered this question long before, when He told Abraham that a stranger could enter into His covenant if he jumped through the same hoop of circumcision as Abraham's seed. Circumcision (as the means of entering into covenant with God) we know was replaced with verbally entering into covenant with Jesus Christ. **(Rom. 3:27-31)**
ReplyDeleteRomans 11:13-24 is the best discourse on being grafted in. Who is the "wild branches"? Who is the "natural branches"? What are your thoughts?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Grace. This was a command of Jesus at this point but a person also has to take into account the "Great Commission". Something along the lines of "Go into ALL the world and take the gospel to EVERY creature." Matt 28:19.
ReplyDeleteIn the discussion about Abraham check out Galatians 4:21-31? Is this a picture of those "Under the law" and those not?
An IN-DEPTH study of Romans 7 is very interesting. How is it that we "Died with Christ"? What does this mean in terms of following the "Old Testament" Law or being led in the Spirit following the "Law that He has WRITTEN on our hearts?
Again. I have found this to be VERY helpful in understanding this WHOLE topic.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/45-50
It was Jesus sending the discipes to the lost sheep of the house of Israel in Matt. 10:6, but in Matt. 15:24 Jesus said "he" was not sent but unto the "lost sheep of the house of Israel."
ReplyDeleteJordan, you left off the end of the Great Commission. The last part which we don't hear quoted nearly as often is "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
The only resource they would have had to find out "all things" would have been the Old Testament, as the New Testament did not exist. And Jesus would have demonstrated living out the whole law perfectly as otherwise he could not have been the perfect lamb, without spot or wrinkle. So by "word " and "action" he showed us the law and fulfilled it by living it out perfectly.
The question I have is, which part of what God said is "very good" do we not want to consider good?
Sid
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSid. In the end of the great commission, Christ says "..Whatsoever things *I* have commanded you..". My question would be this. Did Jesus just "rehash" the teachings of the old testament? or was He telling them to observe the things that He commanded them while he was there?
ReplyDeleteTo say that the only resource they had was the Old Testament would be to say that Christs teachings while He was with them were for nothing. Obviously this is not the case. I believe that Jesus allowed us to learn more about Himself (God) then all of the old testament would have.
II Cor 5:15? Did Christ die only for the Jews? Not according to this passage.
I would take a close CLOSE look at II Cor 3.
Here are a couple verses to ponder. Please let me know if I have taken them out of context, or if they are somehow irrelevant.
Please read II Cor 3: 7-18. I would love to type it out and explain it but that would take up too much space on this blog.
Back on topic about being grafted in....
John 15:5
I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
It is my understanding that a person is "grafted in" when he "Abides in Christ and Christ in him". Jew or Gentile? Doesn't matter according to this passage.
What is the purpose of being "Grafted in"? I would have to say it is to "Bear Fruit" .
Jordan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMark_4:20 “And those sown on good soil, are those who hear the WORD, and ACCEPT it, and bear fruit, some thirtyfold, and some sixty, and some a hundred.”
ReplyDeleteCol_1:10 to walk worthily of the Master, pleasing all, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of Elohim,
ReplyDeleteTitus_3:14 And our brothers should also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, so that they shall not be without fruit.
Luke_8:15 “And that on the good soil are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, retain it, and bear fruit with endurance.
Sid, I am looking forward to your reply to the reply to your comment.
ReplyDeleteSend those Lance's back to MN so you have time to reply! :)
Orrin, Are you sure you mean that "circumcision is replaced by verbally..." from your post on 2-2-12? Replaced? What else did Y'shua replace? Now either these commands you defend stand or they don't.
ReplyDeleteWhat are we grafted into? A root of an olive tree.
Baptism is what I have heard the church says replaces circumcision according to the Reform movement. I don't think commandments can be replaced.
An interesting word study is the word "forever". check it out and then relate it to "perpetual", or "continual" covenant.
Circumcision is still the sign that a man has chosen YHWH. Paul said many things that are hard to understand without fully being immersed in the torah. Circumcision is not required for salvation. It is an act of obedience.
We are justified by faith alone. The works worthy of repentance, or that which is according to the law should not be confused with that which brings salvation. Abraham entered the kingdom of heaven just like you and Me. By Faith. See ch 11 of Hebrews. Enoch, Noah, Sarah, Joseph, etc... There is no new way to get saved. It was always by faith. Luk_3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance,... In verse 9 and following repentance is shown in "works" - the things we do.
Baptism and circumcision are signs from of old times; signs of beginning the path with the Creator.
Jordan, on 1-3-12 you quoted Yahshua and said all the things "I" have commanded you, but is Yahshua not the same as YHWH, so if you believe that YHWH and Yahshua are the same, how could their commandments be different. I think Yahshua came to reiterate the laws, if He;s the same yesterday, today, forever. how could he have His people just STOP keep HIS Law,
ReplyDeleteGood questions Gismo.
ReplyDeleteShalom
Mike, Thanks for the correction. I am relooking at this topic tonight and I'm wondering what your thoughts are on why Paul in Gal.2:3 did not compel Titus to be circumcised. But in Acts 16:3 Paul circumcised Timothy. I had assumed that the issue dealt with Timothy's mother being a Jewess. And so for her to stay in covenant she needed to have her son circumcised. Whereas Titus' parents were both Greeks and he was entering into the covenant as a first generation.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your insight,
Orrin
Orrin, good thought. A random idea I have related to this is "I thought there was no difference between jew and greek".
ReplyDeleteI want to respond to your question in layers. Here is level one of my response. I don't know if I will give level two or not.
Level One: Why does that matter? Can Paul make a decision about circumcision that would change anything on an eternal level?
I want to show that the Torah stands no matter what Paul or any one says or does.
On the other hand, The way Paul walks shows how he believed and behaved were equal. He did not believe one way and act a different way.
Okay I will give you level two. In the sequence of time, this occurs after Acts 15. So that which Jews required of non-Jew converts to this "jewish sect", the Way, were different than what they would have required from jewish born men.
Prior to this in the sequence of tiem in Acts 10:30 Cornelius was appeared to by a man that told him to call for Peter. When Peter went to see him and he believed, and his entire household, there was no circumcision.
Now, maybe Cornelius was already circumcised since he was a "devout man" Acts 10:2
In gal, eph, phil, col, thes, is there anywhere among the gentiles Paul requires anyone to get circumcised? I don't think so. Only Timothy.
So he did not teach the Torah. Or is it an argument from silence? I suppose Paul spent the rest of his life following the edict from the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
That has been covered but to state it plainly. Paul talked about conversion, and then taught the Torah along the way.
I think Timothy and Titus are both object lessons for Paul's preaching.
Thicken the pudding a bit, now. Can Jesus (Y'shua) do anything to change the eternal Law, the Torah of Moses?
Orrin, This has to do with the topic of "change".
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is "layer 3".
I need to ask you to read the larger context. I am referring to Deut 13.
A prophet or dreamer that leads anyone away from the Torah is to be killed. Was Yashua killed because He was leading Israel away from the Truth of Torah according to this passage?
No! But has it been portrayed that way - both by jews and christians?
Consequently, could this perhaps be why the Jews don't believe in Yashua today as the Messiah that was to come? Have we portrayed Him as a Torah Breaker? As a false prophet?
Notice that all the charges brought against Yahshua in His trial were "false". What was he really guilty of? He was innocent, you say?
Mar 14:56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.
Mat 26:59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
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.
The liars portrayed the Savior as one who came "to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in."
from deut 13:5.
If Yashua and Paul were innocent then they did nothing to turn people away from YHWH or the way He commanded them to walk. The Messiah and an apostle, neither has a mark against them of breaking the torah.
In Acts 21:20-26 Paul was Falsely accused, too. What will be ther result if he is portrayed as a torah breaker? I wonder what his demise will be....
Topic! Grafted In? or Changed?
Changed is "rip it out and plant a new tree because the old one is dead".
Grafted in is "the roots of the tree are good but prune it and increase the fruiting"
Wow! Shalom
Mike,
ReplyDeleteBe sure to do your smiley faces with a beard...like this :)} or this :)> or if it is in a mess, like this :)%
Shalom
Shabbat Shalom everybody!
ReplyDeleteDid I forget to smile? Here is a big beardy smile for you :)#
ReplyDeleteDid I forget to smile? Here is a big beardy smile for ya :)#
ReplyDeleteHey Bo and Mike, I wanted your input on a verse I read tonight Hebrews 7:12-16
ReplyDeleteFor the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
What is being referred to when he talks about a change of the law?
Can there be any change?
Carter
Yes, Carter, this is a difficult passage.
ReplyDeleteMy advice to you is that you study those things in the Torah pertaining to this topic before trying to understand the deep thing that is talked about here in Heb 7. A pattern has been set in the last few hundred years to only know the Apostles writings deeply. Part of the "paradigm shift" for me was I needed to admit I knew very little about the Law I was "free" from. There is a lot of teaching in Exodus and Leviticus about the priesthood and sacrifice and atonement for sin. That part is still very Important.
How can anyone truly understand Hebrews with out knowing the background that the "Hebrews" to whom it was written knew very well.
I notice in the intro of the book esp 1:4,1;8 this Son is very different from all the rest of creation. This Son is not exactly created. We know that The Father and The Son are one and the same.(John 10:38) (some day this blog will deal with ideas surrounding the "trinity" that will be enlightening)
Okay...Here is something of an answer to your question...
The (1)priesthood changed. Our great High Priest is Y'shua,
He is greater than the rule that the priest is out of Aaron. However, a close look at Y'shua's lienage will show He is eligible for Priesthood and King.
The idea of Malchi-Zadec, King of Righteousness is another great persuit. Maybe he was pre-incarnate Y'shua or maybe he was Shem or some one else- regardless-- Melchisedec is before Mt Sinai and the giving of the Law. However the Law was being fulfilled, done,in the giving of and receiving of tithes and offerings.
The other (2)change is that there is not a daily sacrifice, not a need for the priest to sacrifice for himself and the people to atone for sin. No continual sacrificial animal on the alter.
High Priest only does this on Yom Kippur every year...
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
That is differen than the Law requires but Messiah did it once for all. still fulfilled the requirement.
I call you back to Matthew's Gospel. Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
I see this as though nothing is passed away, but the savior fulfilled the role of priest once and for all. The Law remains that atonement is Needed. The change in the Law is that the one requiring the price of atonement is the one who paid the price for said needed atonement.
Praise Him for that. Does that help? it will have to do until Bo jumps in tomorrow.
Shalom
Yes it helped a lot. Thanks for the input.
ReplyDeleteShalom
Pretty good stuff Mike ;)}>
ReplyDeleteI have always loved the book of Hebrews. I was studying it when I met my wife : )}>
ReplyDeleteI am always amazed at the depth of truth that we can glean from it. It is a book that is difficult to understand without knowing the Law and the Prophets. It is difficult to grasp when we know the Law and the Prophets. That is one reason why I think that Paul wrote it. Peter says that Paul is misunderstood and that the unstable (those without the foundational truths of the Tanakh) twist what Paul writes to their own destruction becoming law breakers. Hebrews fits the ticket. And if Paul did not write it, the unstable also twist the other scripture to their own destruction also. (2 Peter 3:15-18)
The letter to the Hebrews was written just a very little while before the destruction of the temple. It is a call to the Hebrew believers to start getting used to the fact that there will be no physical temple. It, along with the Levitical priesthood, is "about ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:13)
The whole middle part of Hebrews concerns the differences between the physical/shadow/Levitical priesthood and its "ordinaces of divine service" and "law" and the spiritual/eternal/Melchizedek preitsthood and its ordinances and law.
The law that is spoken of being changed is the sacrificial law. Of course, the reality is that the levitical law is not completely gone...it is just suspended until the Messianic kingdom on earth when the third temple will be rebuilt. There will be animal sacrifices to YHWH again. (Please read Ezekiel.) They will be a shadow just like they always were. The real and eternal sacrifice for sin is the Lamb of YHWH slain from the foundation of the earth.
Y'shua's sacrifice did not put a stop to the levitical priesthood and its offerings. The destruction of the temple did...temporarily. Paul even paid for offerings at the temple to prove that he still kept the law. He and the other apostles evidently did not think that the sacrifice of Y’shua did away with the temple offerings. (Acts 21:24)
The idea in the whole book of Hebrews is that the eternal things are much better than the temporary things. Better sacrifices, better hope, better covenant, better promises, etc. In a very big sense the book explains, or at least gives us glimpses into the eternal things. The eternal things always existed…even when the Levitical system required all sacrifices to be offered at the door of the tabernacle/temple, David and Elijah (at least) operated under the Melchizedek system, as they offered offerings that were accepted by YHWH that were not in accordance to the Levitical system.
The “change in the law” of sacrifices is not a new change. It actually existed from creation. The Levitical system came about because of the refusal of Israel to listen to YHWH for themselves and be YHWH’s kings and priests. After Israel asked for a mediator to listen for them, YHWH instituted the Levitical system as a type and shadow of the eternal system. This is why Moses was supposed to be very careful to build the tabernacle in precise detail to be a faithful representation of the heavenly tabernacle.
YHWH’s Torah/Law/Instructions in righteousness and holiness remain the same. The ordinances for sacrifice are different. This is why Paul can tell Timothy, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” concerning the “Old Testament” writings. (2 Tim.3:16-17) They are not replaced or changed. They are still our basic guidelines for righteousness, holiness and good works.
Shalom
Shalom Orrin.
ReplyDeleteI want to let you know what I believe about two issues. So you know were I'm coming from.
1)I believe in salvation by grace through faith in Yeshua and his saving blood. Ephesians 2:8
2)I Believe even though we are not saved by keeping the Torah it is still our responsibility to live a sin free life as much as possible. Which means we should keep as much of the Torah as possible. For sin is the transgression of the Torah. 1John3:4
Now that you know where I'm coming from I would like to comment on circumcision and being grafted in to Israel.
Genesis 17:10-14
10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Notice that its the parents job to circumcise their son. But it is the son who gets punished for not being circumcised. This implies that he (the son) is expected to get circumcised himself when he is older even if his parents failed to do it themselves. I'm not even going to get in to what "cut off from his people" means. All I know is that it is bad. It applies to both Avraham's physical descendants and even his slaves. If even his slaves should be circumcised how much more his adopted sons.
Galatians 3:29
29And if you are of The Messiah, you are therefore the seed of Avraham and heirs by The Promise.
So, according to Shaul(Paul) if you believe in Yeshua you are an Israelite. And if your definition of Jew is an Israelite then if you believe in Yeshua you are a Jew.
When I look at these two passages I can not help but come to the conclusion that if you are an Israelite A.K.A. believer in Yeshua and you are not circumcised you are in sin.
Shalom
Hey Barrett, I need some wisdom on this. What do you think about Titus not being circumcised. (Galatians 2:3) I'm sure you and I agree the same.
ReplyDeleteShalom
Tyler
ReplyDeleteTorah haters use Titus as an excuse to not keep a command of YHWH. They say that because Titus was not circumcised it means that the commandment of circumcision was done away with, even though YHWH said that the covenant of circumcision was an everlasting covenant. Some of them go so far as to say that if you get circumcised you are sinning. My question is, if it is a sin to get circumcised, then why in the world did Timothy get circumcised? Acts 16:1-3 Obviously it is not a sin to be circumcised or Timothy would not have been circumcised. As for Titus, lets look at the passage in question.
Galatians 2:1-5
1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Bar-Naba, and took Titus with me also.
2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Yeshua HaMashiach, that they might bring us into bondage:
5To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
So, why was Titus not circumcised? Fist Shaul says that Titus was not "compelled". One thing that we have to remember is that circumcision is like immersion(baptism) it is an outward sign of faith that is voluntary. That is if the parents failed to circumcise their son themselves. Circumcision like immersion should never be forced on somebody. Both are commands of YHWH. So as believers we should obey. Its absurd to try to force someone to be baptised and it is just as absurd to try to force someone to be circumcised. Shaul was not going to force Titus to be circumcised nor should he. Why was Titus not compelled? According to Shaul Titus was not compelled because of false brothers who wanted to put Titus into bondage.
Continued from above.
ReplyDeleteSo, how is it that Titus getting circumcised puts him into bondage but Timothy getting circumcised did not put him into bondage? It has nothing to do with Titus being a Gentile and Timothy being Jewish. Because Timothy having a Jewish mother at this time in Judaism meant nothing because they still traced their lineage through their fathers unlike today. That means that according to the Torah both Timothy and Titus were Gentiles physically. But on the other hand being how they were believers in Yeshua that makes both of them Israelites. So, take your pick either Shaul had a Gentile circumcised or he had an Israelite not get circumcised. So I ask again, how is it that Titus getting circumcised puts him into bondage but Timothy getting circumcised did not put him into bondage? The only thing that makes sense to me is that those false brothers from the book of Galatians believed that in order to be saved you had to be circumcised. Titus would never submit himself to such a circumcision of self-righteousness. And obviously Timothy was not trying to earn his salvation by getting circumcised. In short Titus was sending a message. It would be like if you went to a church and you were a believer but you had not been baptised yet, and the people in in this church said that you had to be baptised to be saved. What would you do? I would say that you should tell them to take a hike. You should go find fellowship with people that know that salvation is not by works that any man may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 To my knowledge Shaul never condemned circumcision in any of his writings. And for the sake of argument lets just say that he did condemn circumcision (he didn't by the way but if he did). We would have no other choice but to be like the Bereans and be willing to through out his writings if they don't agree with the Tanach. And for the record being anti-circumcision does not agree with the Tanach. Torah haters that use Titus as an excuse to shirk there responsibility assume that he never got circumcised ever. The text does not say that at all. I can just as easily assume that he did get circumcised later. The text does not say either way. Being how Titus would not have been able to eat the LORD'S supper aka passover without being circumcised, Exodus 12:48-49 I would assume that Titus did indeed get circumcised before passover. Oh no! Did I just base my opinion on what all of scripture says instead of just the book of Galatians. :)} How do you like the beard Bo? I hope this helps Tyler.
Shalom
Barret,
ReplyDeleteI think that you should do yours this way :)> ...but not for salvation...just out of obedi...OK not really ;)}>
Barret,
ReplyDeleteDid you check out the other blog? Here's the link:
http://christianbrotherhood1.blogspot.com/
Thanks Barrett, it helped a lot. :)
ReplyDeleteMines been shaved. Lol!!
Where is our Host? Orrin, what have you been doing. Are you staying busy copyrighting all this good stuff?
ReplyDeleteChime in with us.
:)#
This is the day. Choose now or miss it. It is Preparation Day and this evening is the Sabbath.
DeleteIt is great practice for things to come. This is a shadow of what the future holds. Choose now to enter His rest. You are all invited to my Sabbath Table tonight. Arrive just before the going down of the sun. We will lift up the cup and the bread and make b'rakah(blessing) just like Y'shua did when he fed thousands. We will feast on a fabulous meal my wife and daughters will prepare.
Will you join us to give thanks and bless YHWH who brings forth good things out of the earth?
It is a wonderful time as my wife and I and our ten children and our son's wife and my unborn-grandchild gather around our big table and laugh and talk about our favorite things that happened this week. We give praise and thanks to the one who gave us such great commandments to walk in.
Nothing legalistic, no one is tied up and forced to do anything. It is pure Joy to have this life,this family,These Mitzvot (commands).
You will probably like it so much you will want to do it at your house next week.
Shabbat Shalom!
Michael
Hey Mike,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for not posting more, but my computer had an issue and wouldn't allow me to access the blog for a while. I just got it fixed and can now participate.
I have really been enjoying reading you gentlemen's thoughts and insights on the word of YHWH. Thank you for sharing your time and energy to help all of us (especially we young men) to learn and grow.
Shabbat shalom everyone
ReplyDeleteShabbat shalom everyone
ReplyDelete