Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
It’s much easier to explain the perils of pork than to illuminate sinful human beings about the nature of sin and to explain the doctrines of atonement, redemption, and expiation of sin. My goodness! Just looking at what I just wrote makes me want to preach on pork too!
So what???? Is he going to Hell for talking about pork?
It’s much easier to explain the perils of pork than to illuminate sinful human beings about the nature of sin and to explain the doctrines of atonement, redemption, and expiation of sin. My goodness! Just looking at what I just wrote makes me want to preach on pork too!
So what???? Is he going to Hell for talking about pork?
No, just funny that he will not preach on any substantive, but will give dieting advice.
The problem with Joel is that he says a lot of good things, but doesn’t talk enough about the important things. Like maybe, instead of explaing why pigs are bad for your body, he could explain Jesus’ hard-to-understand words “unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life in you” are good for your soul! Let’s see: preach about pigs or the Lamb of God… hmmm… hard choice.
Just a thought…
The problem with Joel is that he says a lot of good things, but doesn’t talk enough about the important things. Like maybe, instead of explaing why pigs are bad for your body, he could explain Jesus’ hard-to-understand words “unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life in you” are good for your soul! Let’s see: preach about pigs or the Lamb of God… hmmm… hard choice.
Just a thought…
If he preached Hellfire and dammnation, he would not have any followers and by that he would not have the money to buy suits and get his hair fixed…
If he preached Hellfire and dammnation, he would not have any followers and by that he would not have the money to buy suits and get his hair fixed…
I guess they did not serve pizza at youth that night. I have to agree with him on pork. I gave up eating pork and turned to turkey everything. You get used to it.
As far as not preaching salvation, I am not there. He may or may not actually preach it once this year, but I have to say I agree with him on the pork issue. My kids won’t eat it either.
Oh man, he had to go with lobster…oh well, I eat that once a year so I guess I can give it up.
If he goes with turkey, I am in trouble. Thank you God, he cut off at chicken. LOL.
I guess they did not serve pizza at youth that night. I have to agree with him on pork. I gave up eating pork and turned to turkey everything. You get used to it.
As far as not preaching salvation, I am not there. He may or may not actually preach it once this year, but I have to say I agree with him on the pork issue. My kids won’t eat it either.
Oh man, he had to go with lobster…oh well, I eat that once a year so I guess I can give it up.
If he goes with turkey, I am in trouble. Thank you God, he cut off at chicken. LOL.
I have to have my ham! And my thick fried pork chops…smothered in mushroom soup, with big buttermilk bisquits and lots of ice tea…I want to make it to heaven a little faster than the rest of you.
What’s worst than eating pork?
Eating our own. Sad, but true.
What’s worst than eating pork?
Eating our own. Sad, but true.
Well, cannibalism is bad, but I am not sure what denomination actually teaches that one.
This converation is deteriorating, friends. I’m signing off.
This converation is deteriorating, friends. I’m signing off.
Greg, not sure you are getting the light hearted banter.
Eating pork IS sin, Polycarp. Scripture is REALLY clear on that subject, despite the gross misinterpretations of Acts 10 and Acts 15 that are de rigor in the Church.
Eating pork IS sin, Polycarp. Scripture is REALLY clear on that subject, despite the gross misinterpretations of Acts 10 and Acts 15 that are de rigor in the Church.
Rabbi, do you except the New Covenant as Scripture?
I can see how and why the moral laws apply. But why do the dietary laws apply?
I can see how and why the moral laws apply. But why do the dietary laws apply?
Polycarp: No, I *accept* the Apostolic Writings as Scripture. (There is a difference.) And I said that Acts 10 and 15 had been grossly misinterpreted, not that they were invalid.
wbmoore: Where in Scripture is there a division of laws by category? Answer: there is not. This is a myth created by a rebellious institutional leadership back in the 200s and the 300s of the Common Era. It was not a teach of Jesus or the Apostles.
Polycarp: No, I *accept* the Apostolic Writings as Scripture. (There is a difference.) And I said that Acts 10 and 15 had been grossly misinterpreted, not that they were invalid.
wbmoore: Where in Scripture is there a division of laws by category? Answer: there is not. This is a myth created by a rebellious institutional leadership back in the 200s and the 300s of the Common Era. It was not a teach of Jesus or the Apostles.
*Teaching. My bad.
By the way, for those mocking Pastor Osteen about not teaching the “hard stuff,” for a lot of Christians this *IS* hard stuff. I’m not necessarily a fan of Osteen, but on this he’s RIGHT ON.
And in a further response to wbmoore: As Pastor Osteen points out, there are tremendously good health reasons to keep the dietary commandments. What a surprise! The God Who made us and everything knows how our bodies work, how animals live, and therefore what is good for us and what is bad for us! SHOCKING!
*Teaching. My bad.
By the way, for those mocking Pastor Osteen about not teaching the “hard stuff,” for a lot of Christians this *IS* hard stuff. I’m not necessarily a fan of Osteen, but on this he’s RIGHT ON.
And in a further response to wbmoore: As Pastor Osteen points out, there are tremendously good health reasons to keep the dietary commandments. What a surprise! The God Who made us and everything knows how our bodies work, how animals live, and therefore what is good for us and what is bad for us! SHOCKING!
Scripture NEVER contradicts Scripture. All foods are clean, BUT pork is NOT food – food is only what is described as food in Leviticus 11. We believe that there is only ONE WAY to heaven – by the grace of the Most High through faith in Jesus (Yeshua). We observe His Divine Instruction (Torah) not in order to be saved, but BECAUSE we are saved. Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion. When He said, “If you love me, obey My commandments,” He wasn’t holding a New Testament under His arm. It wasn’t written yet.
Scripture NEVER contradicts Scripture. All foods are clean, BUT pork is NOT food – food is only what is described as food in Leviticus 11. We believe that there is only ONE WAY to heaven – by the grace of the Most High through faith in Jesus (Yeshua). We observe His Divine Instruction (Torah) not in order to be saved, but BECAUSE we are saved. Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion. When He said, “If you love me, obey My commandments,” He wasn’t holding a New Testament under His arm. It wasn’t written yet.
Rabbi,
The New Covenant writings, since there is a New Covenant and this writings are under them, I see no reason not to call them the New Covenant writings, tells us that God has allowed the erasing of the dietary laws. Remember, although we like to say First and Old when referring to the Mosaic Law, in fact, it was not the first, with Adam, Noah, and Abraham all receiving covenants. Once these covenants have been fulfilled or broken, then there is another covenant. This vision of Peter is a reminder of what Christ preached in Mark 7.14-19.
You tell us that they were misunderstood, but please, tell us how we are to properly understand something relatively simple.
I will not disagree that not eating pork has it’s advantages.
No, it was written yet, as He had yet to die.
And
Before I go on, let me state that those of Jewish blood, I have no problem with them celebrating their heritage and ancestral religion, as long as it does not contradict Grace. I have more on this subject.
Rabbi,
Please do not take offense with what I write here. This is a topic of great interest to me. I have studied the idea of following the Law a great deal, for a friend of mine whom I respect in many areas does so ( http://thechurchofjesuschrist.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/church-rediscovers-hebrew-roots/#comment-12133 ).
I’m not saying there are not health reasons to not eat pork or shell fish. I have no problem with that.
I guess my question is what parts of the Law should one follow and why?
I ask because we are told in the New Testament that the Law has been cancelled (Colossians 2:13-16), abolished (Ephesians 2:13-16), since it was intended to guide us to Christ (Romans 10:2-4; Galatians 3:23-26), we have been released from the Law (Romans 7:4-12). In fact, if we try to keep one part of the Law, and break it, we are guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10). Yet it is evident people do not sacrifice at the temple, since it was destroyed in 70AD. So if those who follow the Law do not make offerings and sacrifices at the temple, are they not breaking the Law?
You mention, “pork is NOT food – food is only what is described as food in Leviticus 11.” Yet, before the Law, we see that divorce was not allowed in the beginning (Matthew 19:8). And in fact Jesus laid out the scriptural grounds for divorce, marital infidelity (Matthew 19:1-12). In the same way, before the Law all animals were given to mankind as food, with the only stipulation being to not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it (Genesis 9:3-4). This stipulation was repeated by the Apostles (Acts 15:12-21). Also in the same way that Jesus , Jesus declared all food clean – that nothing from outside a man (including food) can make him unclean (Mark 7:14-23).
So, if you go against the teaching of scripture, which says all animals were given as food, and that all food is clean, in deference to the Law, what parts of the Law do you follow, and why?
Rabbi,
Please do not take offense with what I write here. This is a topic of great interest to me. I have studied the idea of following the Law a great deal, for a friend of mine whom I respect in many areas does so ( http://thechurchofjesuschrist.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/church-rediscovers-hebrew-roots/#comment-12133 ).
I’m not saying there are not health reasons to not eat pork or shell fish. I have no problem with that.
I guess my question is what parts of the Law should one follow and why?
I ask because we are told in the New Testament that the Law has been cancelled (Colossians 2:13-16), abolished (Ephesians 2:13-16), since it was intended to guide us to Christ (Romans 10:2-4; Galatians 3:23-26), we have been released from the Law (Romans 7:4-12). In fact, if we try to keep one part of the Law, and break it, we are guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10). Yet it is evident people do not sacrifice at the temple, since it was destroyed in 70AD. So if those who follow the Law do not make offerings and sacrifices at the temple, are they not breaking the Law?
You mention, “pork is NOT food – food is only what is described as food in Leviticus 11.” Yet, before the Law, we see that divorce was not allowed in the beginning (Matthew 19:8). And in fact Jesus laid out the scriptural grounds for divorce, marital infidelity (Matthew 19:1-12). In the same way, before the Law all animals were given to mankind as food, with the only stipulation being to not eat meat with its lifeblood still in it (Genesis 9:3-4). This stipulation was repeated by the Apostles (Acts 15:12-21). Also in the same way that Jesus , Jesus declared all food clean – that nothing from outside a man (including food) can make him unclean (Mark 7:14-23).
So, if you go against the teaching of scripture, which says all animals were given as food, and that all food is clean, in deference to the Law, what parts of the Law do you follow, and why?
Polycarp: First off, the Scriptures are clear that we do not live under the New Covenant yet. The New Covenant era is described in Jeremiah 31. Go read it and explain to me how we’re in that era now. Secondly, the covenant with Adam is the same one we’re under now. It’s the same covenant as the one with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, etc. It has been been renewed, not ended. Please read Matthew 5:13-20. And finally, I thoroughly disagree that anything in the Apostolic Writings overturns the dietary commandments. Do they show that the rabbinic ADDITIONS to the dietary commandments are unnecessary? Yes. But nothing in the Apostolic Writings overturns the dietary commandments and I would challenge you to cite any passage that says it does.
Mark 7 has not a thing to do with the dietary commandments. Plainly, if you read the passage IN ITS ENTIRETY, it says it is about RITUALISTIC HAND-WASHING, not the dietary commandments.
Similarly, Peter’s vision also has not a thing to do with the dietary commandments. Plainly, if you read the passage IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN CONTEXT, it says it is about “God has shown [Peter] that I should not call any man unholy or unclean” … “that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him”, not the dietary commandments.
Try reading what the passages actually SAY they’re about, not what you WANT them to be about.
As for there being no benefits to not eating pork, go ask your doctor about it. He’ll tell you, if you don’t believe what Pastor Osteen has to say.
Polycarp: First off, the Scriptures are clear that we do not live under the New Covenant yet. The New Covenant era is described in Jeremiah 31. Go read it and explain to me how we’re in that era now. Secondly, the covenant with Adam is the same one we’re under now. It’s the same covenant as the one with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, etc. It has been been renewed, not ended. Please read Matthew 5:13-20. And finally, I thoroughly disagree that anything in the Apostolic Writings overturns the dietary commandments. Do they show that the rabbinic ADDITIONS to the dietary commandments are unnecessary? Yes. But nothing in the Apostolic Writings overturns the dietary commandments and I would challenge you to cite any passage that says it does.
Mark 7 has not a thing to do with the dietary commandments. Plainly, if you read the passage IN ITS ENTIRETY, it says it is about RITUALISTIC HAND-WASHING, not the dietary commandments.
Similarly, Peter’s vision also has not a thing to do with the dietary commandments. Plainly, if you read the passage IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN CONTEXT, it says it is about “God has shown [Peter] that I should not call any man unholy or unclean” … “that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him”, not the dietary commandments.
Try reading what the passages actually SAY they’re about, not what you WANT them to be about.
As for there being no benefits to not eating pork, go ask your doctor about it. He’ll tell you, if you don’t believe what Pastor Osteen has to say.
Rabbi, you have provide no scriptural evidence for you claims. (Also, I noted that I understand that pork may be ‘bad for you.’) If you read the entire book of Hebrews, the writer confirms that we are under the New Covenant, which is brought by Christ.
This is not debatable, Rabbi, but clearly understood from the Scriptures, that chapter 8 expounds the passage in Jeremiah. Not sure, since you have provided no scriptural evidence, where you get we are not under the New Covenant. If that covenant is the same, then explain the differences between Abraham and the Law, especially when Aaron was subservient to the King of Salem.
You may disagree with Peter’s vision, but it is Peter’s vision, and nothing was said to dismiss it. Further, Paul upbraided Peter for his lack of loyalty to that vision,
Remember, it is not mere about a passage here or there, but about the entire Word of God.
Again, you may disagree with anything you wish, but that in no way makes it wrong.
Rabbi, you have provide no scriptural evidence for you claims. (Also, I noted that I understand that pork may be ‘bad for you.’) If you read the entire book of Hebrews, the writer confirms that we are under the New Covenant, which is brought by Christ.
This is not debatable, Rabbi, but clearly understood from the Scriptures, that chapter 8 expounds the passage in Jeremiah. Not sure, since you have provided no scriptural evidence, where you get we are not under the New Covenant. If that covenant is the same, then explain the differences between Abraham and the Law, especially when Aaron was subservient to the King of Salem.
You may disagree with Peter’s vision, but it is Peter’s vision, and nothing was said to dismiss it. Further, Paul upbraided Peter for his lack of loyalty to that vision,
Remember, it is not mere about a passage here or there, but about the entire Word of God.
Again, you may disagree with anything you wish, but that in no way makes it wrong.
Rabbi,
Yes, the conversation in Mark 7 began by discussing the traditions of the elders, but it ended discussing the things that make a man unclean, and it was NOT anything that enters the body from outside (including food).
Mark 7:18-23 reads:
So no, Mark 7 was not simply about ritualistic hand-washing, or the other hedge-laws enacted by the elders. It is also about what really makes one clean or unclean. Jesus was clear that things that enter our bodies from the outside, including food, do not make us unclean.
You also have not addressed the fact that all animals were given as food before the Law and Jesus reinstituted that when He said declared all foods clean.
Rabbi,
Yes, the conversation in Mark 7 began by discussing the traditions of the elders, but it ended discussing the things that make a man unclean, and it was NOT anything that enters the body from outside (including food).
Mark 7:18-23 reads:
So no, Mark 7 was not simply about ritualistic hand-washing, or the other hedge-laws enacted by the elders. It is also about what really makes one clean or unclean. Jesus was clear that things that enter our bodies from the outside, including food, do not make us unclean.
You also have not addressed the fact that all animals were given as food before the Law and Jesus reinstituted that when He said declared all foods clean.
It was to Noah that all things were given, including the animals. Even Abraham did not have dietary laws. So, if we follow the line of reasoning that with each successive covenant that it was some how improved, then under Grace, we have found that we can celebrate God’s creation as clean.
It was to Noah that all things were given, including the animals. Even Abraham did not have dietary laws. So, if we follow the line of reasoning that with each successive covenant that it was some how improved, then under Grace, we have found that we can celebrate God’s creation as clean.
Rabbi,
I realize you did not address me when you asked Polycarp to read Matthew 5:13-20. So I hope you do not mind if I step in here. I assume you are referring to Jesus saying He has not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.
Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. However, in fulfilling the Law, He cancelled its requirements. This is a different thing entirely from simply saying they no longer applied – but that because the Law’s purpose had been completed, it are no longer necessary.
What is the difference between abolish and fulfill? Abolish means cancel, destroy, or terminate (ie. I no longer have to pay a debt if the debt is abolished/cancelled). Fulfill means complete (ie. I no longer have to pay a debt once the debt has been completed/met). The effects are the same, but the reason is different – in my example, the debt no longer must be paid. If it is abolished, it no longer has to be paid because the debt was terminated; if it is fulfilled, it no longer has to be paid because the debt was completed. This is what Jesus did for us.
In the same way, heaven and earth would have to disappear before the need for man’s righteousness through the Law would be abolished (terminated), however the debt for righteousness was completely met when Christ finished His work on the cross (John 19:30) for our imputed righteousness. Thus, since the debt has been met, the requirements are cancelled, which we see in Colossians 2:13-16. Indeed, Paul pointed out that Jesus was the end of the Law (Romans 10:2-4). Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor (the Law) which taught us the need (Galatians 3:23-26). We have been released from the Law (Romans 7:4-12). In fact, Paul went so far as to say that Jesus abolished the Law and ordinances in Ephesians 2:13-16.
So no, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but in fulfilling it, He met the debt so the effect is the same – we are no longer under the Law.
I have more on these issues in my posts:
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/christians-and-the-law/ and http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/significance-of-the-mosaic-law/ .
Rabbi,
I realize you did not address me when you asked Polycarp to read Matthew 5:13-20. So I hope you do not mind if I step in here. I assume you are referring to Jesus saying He has not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.
Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. However, in fulfilling the Law, He cancelled its requirements. This is a different thing entirely from simply saying they no longer applied – but that because the Law’s purpose had been completed, it are no longer necessary.
What is the difference between abolish and fulfill? Abolish means cancel, destroy, or terminate (ie. I no longer have to pay a debt if the debt is abolished/cancelled). Fulfill means complete (ie. I no longer have to pay a debt once the debt has been completed/met). The effects are the same, but the reason is different – in my example, the debt no longer must be paid. If it is abolished, it no longer has to be paid because the debt was terminated; if it is fulfilled, it no longer has to be paid because the debt was completed. This is what Jesus did for us.
In the same way, heaven and earth would have to disappear before the need for man’s righteousness through the Law would be abolished (terminated), however the debt for righteousness was completely met when Christ finished His work on the cross (John 19:30) for our imputed righteousness. Thus, since the debt has been met, the requirements are cancelled, which we see in Colossians 2:13-16. Indeed, Paul pointed out that Jesus was the end of the Law (Romans 10:2-4). Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor (the Law) which taught us the need (Galatians 3:23-26). We have been released from the Law (Romans 7:4-12). In fact, Paul went so far as to say that Jesus abolished the Law and ordinances in Ephesians 2:13-16.
So no, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but in fulfilling it, He met the debt so the effect is the same – we are no longer under the Law.
I have more on these issues in my posts:
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/christians-and-the-law/ and http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/significance-of-the-mosaic-law/ .
Rabbi,
As far as not being in the New Covenant. Jesus disagrees with you.
Luke 22:20
In fact, He made the old covenant obsolete.
Hebrews 8:13
Rabbi,
As far as not being in the New Covenant. Jesus disagrees with you.
Luke 22:20
In fact, He made the old covenant obsolete.
Hebrews 8:13
Polycarp: Actually, I provided several references. You are simply ignoring them. I’ve read all of Hebrews. Nothing there says we’re in the New Covenant age; all it says is that the new covenant has been offered. Nowhere does it say we live under a new covenant now. My Scriptural evidence is Jeremiah 31, which describes the New Covenant Age, and we certainly do not meet it the requirements. Please explain how we do.
As for Peter’s vision, please do not put words in my mouth. I have neither dismissed nor disagreed with Peter’s vision. I simply have given the interpretation the SCRIPTURES give it. NOWHERE in the Scriptures does it actually say that it overturns the dietary commandments. In fact, Peter gives the proper interpretation of the vision: “God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.” (Acts 10:28) He later gives the same interpretation of the vision to the Nazarene Sanhedrin in Acts 11. He recapitulates the vision, and makes no mention of the dietary commandments being involved. It seems totally out of context for this vision to be about food when this whole situation is about people.
The Galatians 2 passage is about hypocrisy, not about whether or not the commandments are what we are to live by. Note what Paul says: “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” He doesn’t say, “Why do you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews when you know all that has been done away with?”
Polycarp: Actually, I provided several references. You are simply ignoring them. I’ve read all of Hebrews. Nothing there says we’re in the New Covenant age; all it says is that the new covenant has been offered. Nowhere does it say we live under a new covenant now. My Scriptural evidence is Jeremiah 31, which describes the New Covenant Age, and we certainly do not meet it the requirements. Please explain how we do.
As for Peter’s vision, please do not put words in my mouth. I have neither dismissed nor disagreed with Peter’s vision. I simply have given the interpretation the SCRIPTURES give it. NOWHERE in the Scriptures does it actually say that it overturns the dietary commandments. In fact, Peter gives the proper interpretation of the vision: “God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.” (Acts 10:28) He later gives the same interpretation of the vision to the Nazarene Sanhedrin in Acts 11. He recapitulates the vision, and makes no mention of the dietary commandments being involved. It seems totally out of context for this vision to be about food when this whole situation is about people.
The Galatians 2 passage is about hypocrisy, not about whether or not the commandments are what we are to live by. Note what Paul says: “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” He doesn’t say, “Why do you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews when you know all that has been done away with?”
Okay, this claim that all animals were considered food prior to the giving of the Torah at Sinai is just unScriptural. Go back and reread the instructions given to Noah in Genesis 7:2, “You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female.” The word used for “clean” is “tahor,” which for animals only means the animals defined in Leviticus 11 as food. This is before we were allowed to eat meat, as that occurred after Noah came out of the ark, so the distinction of what animals are clean and unclean predates the allowance of eating meat.
Okay, this claim that all animals were considered food prior to the giving of the Torah at Sinai is just unScriptural. Go back and reread the instructions given to Noah in Genesis 7:2, “You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female.” The word used for “clean” is “tahor,” which for animals only means the animals defined in Leviticus 11 as food. This is before we were allowed to eat meat, as that occurred after Noah came out of the ark, so the distinction of what animals are clean and unclean predates the allowance of eating meat.
wbmoore: You are absolutely incorrect about abolish and fulfill in the context of what these terms meant in first century Israelite lingo. In first century Israelite lingo, to “abolish” the Torah meant to interpret it incorrectly and to “fulfill” meant to interpret it correctly.
I’m not advocating being “under the law.” I’m advocating “If you love Jesus, keep His Commandments.” Jesus gave the Torah. Check out Exodus 24. That has to be Jesus, since no man has seen the Father (John 1:18 and elsewhere).
wbmoore: You are absolutely incorrect about abolish and fulfill in the context of what these terms meant in first century Israelite lingo. In first century Israelite lingo, to “abolish” the Torah meant to interpret it incorrectly and to “fulfill” meant to interpret it correctly.
I’m not advocating being “under the law.” I’m advocating “If you love Jesus, keep His Commandments.” Jesus gave the Torah. Check out Exodus 24. That has to be Jesus, since no man has seen the Father (John 1:18 and elsewhere).
wbmoore: On the New Covenant, it has been poured out for us, yes. That does not mean we’re living in the New Covenant Age. The Old Covenant is aging and will one day disappear, yes. That doesn’t mean we’re there yet.
Two questions for wbmoore & Polycarp:
1) Please identify the elements of the New Covenant Age from Jeremiah 31 and show how the age we live in meets that criteria.
2) What elements of the Torah are so bad you feel they are exempted from 2 Timothy 3:16? If they aren’t… what’s the problem?
wbmoore: On the New Covenant, it has been poured out for us, yes. That does not mean we’re living in the New Covenant Age. The Old Covenant is aging and will one day disappear, yes. That doesn’t mean we’re there yet.
Two questions for wbmoore & Polycarp:
1) Please identify the elements of the New Covenant Age from Jeremiah 31 and show how the age we live in meets that criteria.
2) What elements of the Torah are so bad you feel they are exempted from 2 Timothy 3:16? If they aren’t… what’s the problem?
wbmoore: I’d also point out that the line “Thus He declared all foods clean” are in parentheses or italics in most translations because they’re not in the oldest extant manuscripts. In other words, they were added later and thus should not be considered Scripture.
wbmoore: I’d also point out that the line “Thus He declared all foods clean” are in parentheses or italics in most translations because they’re not in the oldest extant manuscripts. In other words, they were added later and thus should not be considered Scripture.
Rabbi, first of all I hope I did not offend you with my comments mentioned above, they were in jest. I actually like Pastor Osteen. Although I tend to not always agree with him, that smile is the only smile I get sometimes during the week. I truly have given up pork and most other of the unclean animals that I can identify, and I can understand why God made it that way as I do feel better. I was reading what you wrote about abolish and fulfill, are those meanings that you wrote the only meanings for those words scripturally? I am a rather new student of the scriptures and rather curious.
Rabbi, first of all I hope I did not offend you with my comments mentioned above, they were in jest. I actually like Pastor Osteen. Although I tend to not always agree with him, that smile is the only smile I get sometimes during the week. I truly have given up pork and most other of the unclean animals that I can identify, and I can understand why God made it that way as I do feel better. I was reading what you wrote about abolish and fulfill, are those meanings that you wrote the only meanings for those words scripturally? I am a rather new student of the scriptures and rather curious.
Rabbi,
Genesis 7:2 spoke of clean and unclean before meat was given to eat. As such, there was no concept of taking in clean meat or not taking in unclean meat. However Genesis 9:3-4 tells us,
I don’t know how you understand the word ‘everything’, but it was repeated twice. Had God meant certain animals could not be eaten, He would have said so, as He later delineated to Moses. I suppose you understand ‘everything’ in the same way you would have to understand ‘all’ as found in Mark 7:19
You are incorrect in your understanding of abolish and fulfill. Matthew 2:23 uses the word fulfill to mean complete:
Acts 6:14 uses the word destroy for the word translated as abolish in Matthew 5:17.
Fulfill means complete ( http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4137&version=nas ), while abolish means disolve/destroy ( http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2647&version=nas ). Since Christ completed the purpose of the Law, we are released from its requirements. Which is what Paul told us.
How do you understand “canceled the written code, with its regulations” in Colossians 2:13-14?
How do you understand “abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” in Ephesians 2:14-15?
How do you understand “Christ is the end of the law” in Romans 10:4?
How do you understand “no longer under the supervision of the law” in Galatians 3:25?
How do you understand “released from the law” in Romans 7:6?
In every case, these are synonymous phrases to the fact that we are not required to follow the Law.
As for what of the New Covenant do I see us living? I see what Hebrews 10:14-18 tells us has occurred:
What from the Torah is so bad I find it exempted? I find the need to offer sacrifices at the temple something we have been freed from. Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for all time.
Hebrews 10:12
James tells us in James 2:10,
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
So, since Paul tells us the Law has been abolished, cancelled, ended, and since Jesus has fulfilled the law, and since James said if you seek to follow the Law and fail on one point you have broken all of it, and since we are not to offer sacrifice, we are not required to follow the Law – especially since the elders and apostles told us which things to follow in Acts 15:29.
I have no problem following the moral laws, as I think this is what was referred to in Acts 15:29. But I see no need to follow the ceremonial laws, nor the dietary codes, nor social law. And yes, the division was identified in the early church, but this does not mean it is not an appropriate division.
You wrote, ““Thus He declared all foods clean” are in parentheses or italics in most translations because they’re not in the oldest extant manuscripts.” But you are mistaken. Depending on the version, sometimes the words are in parentheses and sometimes not. Look in various versions of the Bible (NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, CEV, NKJV, NCV, ASV, Youngs Literal Translation, Holman Christian Standard), the words are there, sometimes in parentheses, sometimes not – but the versions which give footnotes that the best or oldest manuscripts do not have certain passages do not have any such footnote. The only versions I found which did not have it are Darby, KJV, 21CKJV, Wycliffe.
Rabbi,
Genesis 7:2 spoke of clean and unclean before meat was given to eat. As such, there was no concept of taking in clean meat or not taking in unclean meat. However Genesis 9:3-4 tells us,
I don’t know how you understand the word ‘everything’, but it was repeated twice. Had God meant certain animals could not be eaten, He would have said so, as He later delineated to Moses. I suppose you understand ‘everything’ in the same way you would have to understand ‘all’ as found in Mark 7:19
You are incorrect in your understanding of abolish and fulfill. Matthew 2:23 uses the word fulfill to mean complete:
Acts 6:14 uses the word destroy for the word translated as abolish in Matthew 5:17.
Fulfill means complete ( http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4137&version=nas ), while abolish means disolve/destroy ( http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2647&version=nas ). Since Christ completed the purpose of the Law, we are released from its requirements. Which is what Paul told us.
How do you understand “canceled the written code, with its regulations” in Colossians 2:13-14?
How do you understand “abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” in Ephesians 2:14-15?
How do you understand “Christ is the end of the law” in Romans 10:4?
How do you understand “no longer under the supervision of the law” in Galatians 3:25?
How do you understand “released from the law” in Romans 7:6?
In every case, these are synonymous phrases to the fact that we are not required to follow the Law.
As for what of the New Covenant do I see us living? I see what Hebrews 10:14-18 tells us has occurred:
What from the Torah is so bad I find it exempted? I find the need to offer sacrifices at the temple something we have been freed from. Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for all time.
Hebrews 10:12
James tells us in James 2:10,
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
So, since Paul tells us the Law has been abolished, cancelled, ended, and since Jesus has fulfilled the law, and since James said if you seek to follow the Law and fail on one point you have broken all of it, and since we are not to offer sacrifice, we are not required to follow the Law – especially since the elders and apostles told us which things to follow in Acts 15:29.
I have no problem following the moral laws, as I think this is what was referred to in Acts 15:29. But I see no need to follow the ceremonial laws, nor the dietary codes, nor social law. And yes, the division was identified in the early church, but this does not mean it is not an appropriate division.
You wrote, ““Thus He declared all foods clean” are in parentheses or italics in most translations because they’re not in the oldest extant manuscripts.” But you are mistaken. Depending on the version, sometimes the words are in parentheses and sometimes not. Look in various versions of the Bible (NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, CEV, NKJV, NCV, ASV, Youngs Literal Translation, Holman Christian Standard), the words are there, sometimes in parentheses, sometimes not – but the versions which give footnotes that the best or oldest manuscripts do not have certain passages do not have any such footnote. The only versions I found which did not have it are Darby, KJV, 21CKJV, Wycliffe.
Rabbi, I can offer no better an answer than Wb’s. I believe that we are of the same mind here – he and I; however, you have not fully satisfied my question. Why do you consider us, the Church, not to be under the New Covenant when Christ said that we were, and the entire book of Hebrews warned against the apostasy of some who were slipping back into Judaism? Remember, as Wb pointed out, Hebrews expounds the passage in Jeremiah.
Further, Rabbi, let me say that I am enjoying this conversation, as it is most helpful to be able to discuss things in a civilized manner.
I would like to add that as long as one does not replace the grace of God with following the Law, I see nothing wrong with following as much of the Law that was not reiterated in the New Testament as you see fit. But I see no requirement for doing so. The Law and the rest of the Old Testament was about the letter of the Law, but the New Testament is about the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6). The requirements of the Law were met with Jesus on the cross, so we are under no obligation to follow the Law (Colossians 2:13-14; Ephesians 2:14-15; Romans 10:4; Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:25).
I would like to add that as long as one does not replace the grace of God with following the Law, I see nothing wrong with following as much of the Law that was not reiterated in the New Testament as you see fit. But I see no requirement for doing so. The Law and the rest of the Old Testament was about the letter of the Law, but the New Testament is about the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6). The requirements of the Law were met with Jesus on the cross, so we are under no obligation to follow the Law (Colossians 2:13-14; Ephesians 2:14-15; Romans 10:4; Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:25).
My point exactly. I would make a difference, at least in my mind, of celebrating the Law and following the Law (although this is semantic).
We have to remember, there are certain points of the Law that would be detrimental to Grace.
An interesting verse is found in Romans 14:13-21:
An interesting verse is found in Romans 14:13-21:
That’s pretty clear, Wb.
And based upon the passage above (Romans 14:13-21), those who believe certain food are unclean then for them it is unclean.
But this does not make it unclean for those who do not believe so, based on the totality of scripture.
And based upon the passage above (Romans 14:13-21), those who believe certain food are unclean then for them it is unclean.
But this does not make it unclean for those who do not believe so, based on the totality of scripture.
Polycarp,
Unfortunately it is not clear to those who try to force an understanding of food as only what was considered ceremonially clean. This is why I showed that God had given all animals as food. Just as all plants were given as food (Genesis 1:29-30), so too were all animals given as food – to underline this God said, ‘Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.‘
Polycarp,
Unfortunately it is not clear to those who try to force an understanding of food as only what was considered ceremonially clean. This is why I showed that God had given all animals as food. Just as all plants were given as food (Genesis 1:29-30), so too were all animals given as food – to underline this God said, ‘Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.‘
argh.. the above reference of God giving everything was Genesis 9:3.
argh.. the above reference of God giving everything was Genesis 9:3.
Tammy: Those were what they meant in the first century and a bit before and after, but I don’t know beyond that.
Tammy: Those were what they meant in the first century and a bit before and after, but I don’t know beyond that.
Okay, thank you Rabbi. I am learning to use a few books but sometimes they confound me. So, your saying the terminology abolish the law means to interprete it incorrectly, but to fulfill is to interpete it correctly.
Oh okay, it took me a few minutes, but it clicked. So when you interpret something incorrectly you abolish its effect? But when you interprete it correctly, you receive the fulfillment of its effect? Kind of like how people abolish grace by not interpreting it correctly and others fulfill grace by interpreting it correctly. Am I on the right track?
Okay, thank you Rabbi. I am learning to use a few books but sometimes they confound me. So, your saying the terminology abolish the law means to interprete it incorrectly, but to fulfill is to interpete it correctly.
Oh okay, it took me a few minutes, but it clicked. So when you interpret something incorrectly you abolish its effect? But when you interprete it correctly, you receive the fulfillment of its effect? Kind of like how people abolish grace by not interpreting it correctly and others fulfill grace by interpreting it correctly. Am I on the right track?
Tammy, the good Rabbi is wrong. There is no proof to the Rabbi’s words, except by those intent on destroying the message of Grace of Jesus Christ. Christ fulfilled the Law – remember, Paul called it our schoolmaster, in that the Law was to teach us of Christ and His Church. Once Christ was arrived and suffered the Cross, our ‘schooling’ was done. Christ fulfilled the Law in that He took up Himself the sins of the World, and gave us what the Law could not – true forgiveness.
Remember, if the Law was still in effect today, we could stone unruly children and would be required to offer yearly sacrifices of various animals. Christ fulfilled the Law, so we are no longer under the Law.
I agree completely. I think that is why I put his words and definition to grace. If I use that interpretation of words that he used for law towards grace it hopefully reveals the wrong believing that the law produces. Being a gentile, I am and have not been under the law, but because of Israel’s failure to acknowledge Jesus and their sin of crucifying the Son of God because of their unbelief, I was afforded, as a gentile, this grace that I so treasure.
I wanted to use his words to hopefully catch his own eye and make him think. I might be totally unsuccessful at it, but I wanted to try.
I realize he may not believe in my Precious Savior’s sacrifice, so with grace I will try to reach him.
I have been captivated by grace and found it curious his definition and can see how he would use those definitions even though they only destroy his beliefs more than uphold them.
I agree completely. I think that is why I put his words and definition to grace. If I use that interpretation of words that he used for law towards grace it hopefully reveals the wrong believing that the law produces. Being a gentile, I am and have not been under the law, but because of Israel’s failure to acknowledge Jesus and their sin of crucifying the Son of God because of their unbelief, I was afforded, as a gentile, this grace that I so treasure.
I wanted to use his words to hopefully catch his own eye and make him think. I might be totally unsuccessful at it, but I wanted to try.
I realize he may not believe in my Precious Savior’s sacrifice, so with grace I will try to reach him.
I have been captivated by grace and found it curious his definition and can see how he would use those definitions even though they only destroy his beliefs more than uphold them.
Thank you so much for being concerned about me and the possibility of me being caught up on false doctrine. You are a true wonderful brother watching over me. I am truly blessed, seriously blessed.
Thank you so much for being concerned about me and the possibility of me being caught up on false doctrine. You are a true wonderful brother watching over me. I am truly blessed, seriously blessed.
Amen, Tammy, amen. (and you are welcome)
It seems our good rabbi has a book out revealing why Christians should keep the Torah. Hmm.. might be worth getting the ebook. At least I could have a written text of the arguments for keeping Torah.
It seems our good rabbi has a book out revealing why Christians should keep the Torah. Hmm.. might be worth getting the ebook. At least I could have a written text of the arguments for keeping Torah.
I saw that – and I saw that when his questions were answered, he failed to give any better responses.
You know, I am really getting tired of this notion that I’m trying to destroy grace. This has not a whit to do with earning salvation. I don’t believe in earning salvation. This is about what happens BEYOND SALVATION (hence the name of my book and radio show). Salvation is the starting point of a journey with God. Proper Torah Observance can only come AFTER you’ve attained Salvation by Faith, so no dilution of the Grace doctrine is involved. I’ve never mentioned the Salvation/Grace issue, and yet you leap to the notion that that’s what I’m talking about. Theology and doctrine are about far more than Salvation!
Polycarp and wbmoore, as for proof on the abolish/fulfill issue, I can cite many scholars, but I doubt you will listen, since all of them are either Messianic or mainline Jewish. It is apparent to me that you won’t listen to me on these issues because your minds are set on the issue. You claim that I am passing judgment, when I have never done so. Your rhetoric implies I am teaching Salvation through Works, though I have never said anything of the sort. And you won’t respond to the basic arguments made, just to say, “You’re wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong” and to imply I refuse to see something. I’m becoming tired of trying to debate people who refuse to engage the arguments I make.
Tammy, if you want more information, feel free to contact me at rabbiadam@comcast.net . Check out my book at http://beyondsalvation.info . Check out my podcast at http://gcast.com/u/rabbiadam . Check out my congregation at http://fresnohouseofprayer.com . And check out our organization at http://ctomc.info .
For now, I am not going to respond anymore here, unless I see people willing to argue in good faith.
You know, I am really getting tired of this notion that I’m trying to destroy grace. This has not a whit to do with earning salvation. I don’t believe in earning salvation. This is about what happens BEYOND SALVATION (hence the name of my book and radio show). Salvation is the starting point of a journey with God. Proper Torah Observance can only come AFTER you’ve attained Salvation by Faith, so no dilution of the Grace doctrine is involved. I’ve never mentioned the Salvation/Grace issue, and yet you leap to the notion that that’s what I’m talking about. Theology and doctrine are about far more than Salvation!
Polycarp and wbmoore, as for proof on the abolish/fulfill issue, I can cite many scholars, but I doubt you will listen, since all of them are either Messianic or mainline Jewish. It is apparent to me that you won’t listen to me on these issues because your minds are set on the issue. You claim that I am passing judgment, when I have never done so. Your rhetoric implies I am teaching Salvation through Works, though I have never said anything of the sort. And you won’t respond to the basic arguments made, just to say, “You’re wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong” and to imply I refuse to see something. I’m becoming tired of trying to debate people who refuse to engage the arguments I make.
Tammy, if you want more information, feel free to contact me at rabbiadam@comcast.net . Check out my book at http://beyondsalvation.info . Check out my podcast at http://gcast.com/u/rabbiadam . Check out my congregation at http://fresnohouseofprayer.com . And check out our organization at http://ctomc.info .
For now, I am not going to respond anymore here, unless I see people willing to argue in good faith.
Rabbi, it seems to me that the only ‘good faith’ argument that you desire is one which is in agreement with you.
Not once in Scripture do we see anyone say that we come to Christ by Faith, but have to return to the Law. This is exactly what the writer of the letter to the Hebrews was trying to avoid. We are not commanded to observe the Law, or else, no more Grace. The Law is completely Works, but Grace is not.
Tell me, do we have to observe all the Law? Or just the holidays and the dietary rules? Do we observe all 613 commandants or just the big 10?
Concerning the fulfill/abolish issue:
Robertson says,
Irenaeus, the Church Father, says,
John Gill, an early Protestant commentator, says this
The most dangerous Protestant of them all, John Calvin says, it this way,
God fulfilled all the ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses, and took upon Him our sins, so that we no longer have to follow works.
Rabbi, you mention that you have support, but only from those with your agenda. The same could be said of us – although I am sure we might object. But, tell me, do we follow the entire Law after Grace?
Rabbi, if you say that abolishing means to misinterprete the law, what was wrong with saying that if you misinterprete Grace you abolish it; just as if you fulfill the law you interprete it correctly and the same if you interprete Grace correctly you fullfil it. I don’t recall saying you were abolishing grace, I was just asking if the meanings were for everything. Your issue of importance is Torah, and now I read keeping the law after salvation, which Paul was really stearn on with the Galations about. Anyhow, I have found it so much easier to keep the basic laws of God after Grace. I do not step outside of it for any reason. In fact, my desire to change how I eat, work, teach my sons are all wrapped up in Grace as yours is wrapped up in the Torah after salvation. Grace is more than salvation for me. It is not something that just happened, it is part of me. It is hard to describe. For all I know, I am observing the Torah properly because of what God has done in me. He has circumcised my heart. I’m branded, I’m His.
I am sorry if you took what I wrote wrong to either you or Poly. Poly knows where I stand, he has read me coming from a confused woman to the one I am now. He was just looking out for me so I was reassuring him. I want to reassure you that I am not dismssing what you say and I see where your coming from, it is only fair I share were I come from. I think I will give your podcast a listen to see where you are coming from if I don’t understand it from here. I am not a theologian, just a child of the Most High God.
In fact, the only reason I would even attempt to explain my position on grace is because after my husband left me for another woman and left me with one disabled child and two other sons, then very young to raise, it was a rabbi who came up to me when I was at rummage sale at the synnagoge (I hope I spelled that right) and put his arm around my shoulder and told me that even if every man left, God never would. It was his words that were the first to minister healing to me. So, please read my heart in my words. Since it seems you have experienced Grace, I am so happy. But since I was not sure, please understand I had to try. God bless you and Shalom.
Rabbi, if you say that abolishing means to misinterprete the law, what was wrong with saying that if you misinterprete Grace you abolish it; just as if you fulfill the law you interprete it correctly and the same if you interprete Grace correctly you fullfil it. I don’t recall saying you were abolishing grace, I was just asking if the meanings were for everything. Your issue of importance is Torah, and now I read keeping the law after salvation, which Paul was really stearn on with the Galations about. Anyhow, I have found it so much easier to keep the basic laws of God after Grace. I do not step outside of it for any reason. In fact, my desire to change how I eat, work, teach my sons are all wrapped up in Grace as yours is wrapped up in the Torah after salvation. Grace is more than salvation for me. It is not something that just happened, it is part of me. It is hard to describe. For all I know, I am observing the Torah properly because of what God has done in me. He has circumcised my heart. I’m branded, I’m His.
I am sorry if you took what I wrote wrong to either you or Poly. Poly knows where I stand, he has read me coming from a confused woman to the one I am now. He was just looking out for me so I was reassuring him. I want to reassure you that I am not dismssing what you say and I see where your coming from, it is only fair I share were I come from. I think I will give your podcast a listen to see where you are coming from if I don’t understand it from here. I am not a theologian, just a child of the Most High God.
In fact, the only reason I would even attempt to explain my position on grace is because after my husband left me for another woman and left me with one disabled child and two other sons, then very young to raise, it was a rabbi who came up to me when I was at rummage sale at the synnagoge (I hope I spelled that right) and put his arm around my shoulder and told me that even if every man left, God never would. It was his words that were the first to minister healing to me. So, please read my heart in my words. Since it seems you have experienced Grace, I am so happy. But since I was not sure, please understand I had to try. God bless you and Shalom.
Yet again, this is not about Salvation. No one said one HAD to return to the Law by Faith — although I would dispute your position that no one was told they had to keep the Torah. There are plenty of instances when Believers were, in fact, told post-Salvation they needed to keep Torah. To demonstrate that Paul was NOT teaching Believers to move away from Torah, he was caused to undergo a Nazirite vow and to pay for others to do theirs! The ruling of Acts 15 clearly communicates to new Believers their opportunity to go learn Torah in the Synagogues every week!
Again, this is not a Salvation issue. This is how God asks His Redeemed People Israel — no matter their genetic background is, all Believers are Israel — to live. “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”
Yet again, this is not about Salvation. No one said one HAD to return to the Law by Faith — although I would dispute your position that no one was told they had to keep the Torah. There are plenty of instances when Believers were, in fact, told post-Salvation they needed to keep Torah. To demonstrate that Paul was NOT teaching Believers to move away from Torah, he was caused to undergo a Nazirite vow and to pay for others to do theirs! The ruling of Acts 15 clearly communicates to new Believers their opportunity to go learn Torah in the Synagogues every week!
Again, this is not a Salvation issue. This is how God asks His Redeemed People Israel — no matter their genetic background is, all Believers are Israel — to live. “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”
Rabbi, please provide documentation where people were told to obey the Torah. And please answer the question, are we now required to keep the entire Torah? All 613 commandments?
Further,
How many? Oh well, probably not keeping them all then. Praise Jesus for fulfilling the Law.
How many? Oh well, probably not keeping them all then. Praise Jesus for fulfilling the Law.
Rabbi,
You wrote, ” I am really getting tired of this notion that I’m trying to destroy grace.” I don’t think we have said that. I know Polycarp and I both have specifically said that as long as you do not replace grace with the Law, then neither of us see a problem with keeping Torah. However, we have also asked you to provide scriptural support that indicates keeping Torah does not do that.
I am sure you can cite many scholars who support your position, as I could find some who supported mine, if I bothered to look. But I prefer to interpret scripture with scripture before trying to see what others think of the subject at hand. I have rarely see people who disagree with the positions I see in scripture to have considered all the details scripture provides us.
You have provided no scriptural evidence for the understanding of abolish and fulfill, only the opinions of men. I have shown you scriptural evidence that abolish means destroy and fulfill means complete. Please show me scripturally where abolish and fulfill do not mean destroy and complete, but interpret incorrectly and interpret correctly?
I have not mentioned salvation. I am speaking of returning to the Law when we have accepted the truth of grace through faith in Christ. If you are not teaching works, then what ARE you teaching? What is the purpose of keeping Torah when we have the grace of God through faith in Christ?
Paul wrote in Galatians 2:21
And then in Galatians 3:1-5
So again, I ask, what reason do you have in keeping Torah, when Paul wrote that righteousness can not be gained through the Law? If you are not trying to return to the Law, then what are you doing observing Torah? What is its purpose and what scriptural evidence do you have for doing so (not the understanding of a man, but scripture itself)?
You wrote, “To demonstrate that Paul was NOT teaching Believers to move away from Torah, he was caused to undergo a Nazirite vow and to pay for others to do theirs!”
Yes, Paul underwent the purification rite, but not for the reason you suggest, but to appease the Jewish believers who were zealous for the Law. You will notice there was no mention of Paul not teaching exactly what he was accused of. Merely that the elders wanted to appease Jews in Jerusalem, as well as the reiteration of what the Gentile believers were to do – “abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
Act 21:20-25
Are Gentile believers different than Jewish believers? Not according to Romans 3:20-26
Now we shall see why Paul was willing to undergo said rite. He himself said when among Jews, He lived like a Jew. When among Gentiles, he was lived like a Gentile. And he did it to win those people. Paul himself said he was not under the law. Since he said that he was under not under the law, but was under Christ’s law, the two can not be the same.
1 Corinthians 9:20-23
Please provide scriptural support for where people were called to keep Torah post salvation?
Yes, the elders and apostles in Jerusalem said the people can hear the Torah weekly, but this does not mean they are intended to keep it. In fact, Peter spoke out against that very idea when the idea was brought up.
Acts 15:5-11
James said in Acts 15:19-21
But examined in the context of the conversation that is relayed to us in Acts 15, I believe it is easy to see the reason James said that Moses is read weekly is that he was reminding people of what Peter had said, that righteousness does not come from the Law, as evidenced by the fact that it was taught weekly but we still needed faith in Christ.
You make arguments from man’s wisdom, not scripture. If you can show me in scripture where I am wrong, then I am more than willing to consider and perhaps even embrace your argument.
Rabbi,
You wrote, ” I am really getting tired of this notion that I’m trying to destroy grace.” I don’t think we have said that. I know Polycarp and I both have specifically said that as long as you do not replace grace with the Law, then neither of us see a problem with keeping Torah. However, we have also asked you to provide scriptural support that indicates keeping Torah does not do that.
I am sure you can cite many scholars who support your position, as I could find some who supported mine, if I bothered to look. But I prefer to interpret scripture with scripture before trying to see what others think of the subject at hand. I have rarely see people who disagree with the positions I see in scripture to have considered all the details scripture provides us.
You have provided no scriptural evidence for the understanding of abolish and fulfill, only the opinions of men. I have shown you scriptural evidence that abolish means destroy and fulfill means complete. Please show me scripturally where abolish and fulfill do not mean destroy and complete, but interpret incorrectly and interpret correctly?
I have not mentioned salvation. I am speaking of returning to the Law when we have accepted the truth of grace through faith in Christ. If you are not teaching works, then what ARE you teaching? What is the purpose of keeping Torah when we have the grace of God through faith in Christ?
Paul wrote in Galatians 2:21
And then in Galatians 3:1-5
So again, I ask, what reason do you have in keeping Torah, when Paul wrote that righteousness can not be gained through the Law? If you are not trying to return to the Law, then what are you doing observing Torah? What is its purpose and what scriptural evidence do you have for doing so (not the understanding of a man, but scripture itself)?
You wrote, “To demonstrate that Paul was NOT teaching Believers to move away from Torah, he was caused to undergo a Nazirite vow and to pay for others to do theirs!”
Yes, Paul underwent the purification rite, but not for the reason you suggest, but to appease the Jewish believers who were zealous for the Law. You will notice there was no mention of Paul not teaching exactly what he was accused of. Merely that the elders wanted to appease Jews in Jerusalem, as well as the reiteration of what the Gentile believers were to do – “abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
Act 21:20-25
Are Gentile believers different than Jewish believers? Not according to Romans 3:20-26
Now we shall see why Paul was willing to undergo said rite. He himself said when among Jews, He lived like a Jew. When among Gentiles, he was lived like a Gentile. And he did it to win those people. Paul himself said he was not under the law. Since he said that he was under not under the law, but was under Christ’s law, the two can not be the same.
1 Corinthians 9:20-23
Please provide scriptural support for where people were called to keep Torah post salvation?
Yes, the elders and apostles in Jerusalem said the people can hear the Torah weekly, but this does not mean they are intended to keep it. In fact, Peter spoke out against that very idea when the idea was brought up.
Acts 15:5-11
James said in Acts 15:19-21
But examined in the context of the conversation that is relayed to us in Acts 15, I believe it is easy to see the reason James said that Moses is read weekly is that he was reminding people of what Peter had said, that righteousness does not come from the Law, as evidenced by the fact that it was taught weekly but we still needed faith in Christ.
You make arguments from man’s wisdom, not scripture. If you can show me in scripture where I am wrong, then I am more than willing to consider and perhaps even embrace your argument.
Well said, Wb
[...] Christians keep the Jewish Dietary Laws? Posted on February 14, 2009 by wbmoore A Messianic Christian Rabbi made the statements, “eating pork is sin,” “”All foods are clean, BUT pork is NOT food – food [...]
[...] Christians keep the Jewish Dietary Laws? Posted on February 13, 2009 by wbmoore A Messianic Christian Rabbi made the statements, “eating pork is sin,” “”All foods are clean, BUT pork is NOT food – food [...]
Thanks, Polycarp. I decided to use this stuff in a series of posts.
Thanks, Polycarp. I decided to use this stuff in a series of posts.
I will not attempt to reply in-depth, as I don’t have the time to do so — and, in fact, already did, in my book “Beyond Salvation: Why Believers in Jesus Should Keep the Torah,” available at http://beyondsalvation.info . But I do want to correct one amazing misstatement by wbmoore. In response to my statement, “To demonstrate that Paul was NOT teaching Believers to move away from Torah, he was caused to undergo a Nazirite vow and to pay for others to do theirs!” wb wrote, “Yes, Paul underwent the purification rite, but not for the reason you suggest, but to appease the Jewish believers who were zealous for the Law. You will notice there was no mention of Paul not teaching exactly what he was accused of.”
The amazing thing is that he then goes on to quote the very verse that shows him to be incorrect! Verse 24, James speaking of the reports that Paul is telling people not to keep Torah, and why he is ordering him to undergo the Nazirite vow, “Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you”! There you go!
As for the four-fold requirements for table fellowship from Acts 15, they are OBVIOUSLY not all the commandments incumbent upon Believers. If they were, a whole lot of items we’d all consider to be sins would be allowed, like worshiping idols, murder, assault, theft, stinginess, not tithing, using false weights and measures, lying, I could go on and on.
OBVIOUSLY, there is more required of a Believer than those four things. But if you think those four things are all the Jerusalem Council required, then how can that be? Is that not the final word?
And don’t start with the moral law vs. the ceremonial law. There is no such division anywhere given in Scripture.
I will not attempt to reply in-depth, as I don’t have the time to do so — and, in fact, already did, in my book “Beyond Salvation: Why Believers in Jesus Should Keep the Torah,” available at http://beyondsalvation.info . But I do want to correct one amazing misstatement by wbmoore. In response to my statement, “To demonstrate that Paul was NOT teaching Believers to move away from Torah, he was caused to undergo a Nazirite vow and to pay for others to do theirs!” wb wrote, “Yes, Paul underwent the purification rite, but not for the reason you suggest, but to appease the Jewish believers who were zealous for the Law. You will notice there was no mention of Paul not teaching exactly what he was accused of.”
The amazing thing is that he then goes on to quote the very verse that shows him to be incorrect! Verse 24, James speaking of the reports that Paul is telling people not to keep Torah, and why he is ordering him to undergo the Nazirite vow, “Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you”! There you go!
As for the four-fold requirements for table fellowship from Acts 15, they are OBVIOUSLY not all the commandments incumbent upon Believers. If they were, a whole lot of items we’d all consider to be sins would be allowed, like worshiping idols, murder, assault, theft, stinginess, not tithing, using false weights and measures, lying, I could go on and on.
OBVIOUSLY, there is more required of a Believer than those four things. But if you think those four things are all the Jerusalem Council required, then how can that be? Is that not the final word?
And don’t start with the moral law vs. the ceremonial law. There is no such division anywhere given in Scripture.
Rabbi,
Thanks for pointing that out. It may be that Paul was or was not teaching Jews did not need to follow the Law (context is not clear). But you have to finish the quote from verse 24, “Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.” It may be the purification rite was to show Paul did follow the Law (which it says) or that he did not teach Jews to not follow the Law, or both. One thing is certain, However, Paul made it clear he lived as a Gentile when among the gentiles and as a Jew when among the Jews (1 Corinthians 9:20-23). This would require him to undergo purification rites when he moved from among the Gentiles to among the Jews.
Paul also made it clear that not even Titus was required to be circumcized when they went to the elders in jerusalem to verify the gospel Paul was teaching in contrast to what the judaizers were trying to enslave them.
Galatians 2:1-5
We are under the law of the spirit, the law of Christ – I think they are the same.
Romans 8:2
1 Corinthians 9:21
We are to live in ways that exemplify the love for God and our brother, Christ made it quite clear (Matthew 19:16-21; Matthew 22:38-40; John 15:17). So did Paul (Romans 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 13;1; Corinthians 16:14). It is the spirit that is more important than the letter (2 Corinthians 3:6).
If people are going to ignore the moral law – ceremonial law division, they are certainly free to do so. They are also free to worship at the temple in Jerusalem and offer sacrifice, if such a place was still in existence. But since they can not do so, because the temple was destroyed in 70AD, to try to keep the Law and fail to worship at the temple is to break the Law. We know that trying to keep the Law and not keep all of it makes you a lawbreaker.
James 2:10
The fact that God allowed, or had (depending on view point), the temple destroyed in 70AD creates an aweful big stumbling block for those attempting to keep the Law. Especially since we are free from the requirements of the Law.
Again, if one feels one can follow the law and not replace the grace of God then feel free. But we have been freed from the Law, why would you want to return to it?
Rabbi,
Thanks for pointing that out. It may be that Paul was or was not teaching Jews did not need to follow the Law (context is not clear). But you have to finish the quote from verse 24, “Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.” It may be the purification rite was to show Paul did follow the Law (which it says) or that he did not teach Jews to not follow the Law, or both. One thing is certain, However, Paul made it clear he lived as a Gentile when among the gentiles and as a Jew when among the Jews (1 Corinthians 9:20-23). This would require him to undergo purification rites when he moved from among the Gentiles to among the Jews.
Paul also made it clear that not even Titus was required to be circumcized when they went to the elders in jerusalem to verify the gospel Paul was teaching in contrast to what the judaizers were trying to enslave them.
Galatians 2:1-5
We are under the law of the spirit, the law of Christ – I think they are the same.
Romans 8:2
1 Corinthians 9:21
We are to live in ways that exemplify the love for God and our brother, Christ made it quite clear (Matthew 19:16-21; Matthew 22:38-40; John 15:17). So did Paul (Romans 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 13;1; Corinthians 16:14). It is the spirit that is more important than the letter (2 Corinthians 3:6).
If people are going to ignore the moral law – ceremonial law division, they are certainly free to do so. They are also free to worship at the temple in Jerusalem and offer sacrifice, if such a place was still in existence. But since they can not do so, because the temple was destroyed in 70AD, to try to keep the Law and fail to worship at the temple is to break the Law. We know that trying to keep the Law and not keep all of it makes you a lawbreaker.
James 2:10
The fact that God allowed, or had (depending on view point), the temple destroyed in 70AD creates an aweful big stumbling block for those attempting to keep the Law. Especially since we are free from the requirements of the Law.
Again, if one feels one can follow the law and not replace the grace of God then feel free. But we have been freed from the Law, why would you want to return to it?
When I wrote, “They are also free to worship at the temple in Jerusalem and offer sacrifice, if such a place was still in existence,” I was speaking sarcastically. For I went on to explain the temple was destroyed. We are not to offer sacrifices, for that was part of the old law, from which we have been freed (Galatians 3:23-25; Colossians 2:13-14; Ephesians 2:14-15; Romans 7:6; Romans 10:4; Hebrews 7:18).
Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for all time.
Hebrews 10:12
Here are some posts I’ve made in this area:
Christians following Jewish Traditions
Christians And The Law
Should Christians keep the Jewish Dietary Laws?
What do abolish and fulfill mean in Matthew 5:13-20?
Are Christians under the New Covenant or not?
Has the Mosaic Law been abolished?
Was the Law originally intended as a means of Salvation?
How do the Law, faith, and wrath relate?
Significance of The Mosaic Law
What is work in relation to faith?
What is meant by Grace in relation to God?
When I wrote, “They are also free to worship at the temple in Jerusalem and offer sacrifice, if such a place was still in existence,” I was speaking sarcastically. For I went on to explain the temple was destroyed. We are not to offer sacrifices, for that was part of the old law, from which we have been freed (Galatians 3:23-25; Colossians 2:13-14; Ephesians 2:14-15; Romans 7:6; Romans 10:4; Hebrews 7:18).
Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for all time.
Hebrews 10:12
Here are some posts I’ve made in this area:
Christians following Jewish Traditions
Christians And The Law
Should Christians keep the Jewish Dietary Laws?
What do abolish and fulfill mean in Matthew 5:13-20?
Are Christians under the New Covenant or not?
Has the Mosaic Law been abolished?
Was the Law originally intended as a means of Salvation?
How do the Law, faith, and wrath relate?
Significance of The Mosaic Law
What is work in relation to faith?
What is meant by Grace in relation to God?
Polycarp, one of my posts went to spam, because of the number of links in it.
Polycarp, one of my posts went to spam, because of the number of links in it.
Rabbi, are we to obey all 613 commandments of the Law? Further, why was it that Paul resisted the circumcision of Titus and then wrote a book (Galatians) about his experiences?
Rabbi, as I posted this morning, the only circumcision that Paul considered valid was the spiritual circumcision. All other circumcision was merely for show.
Saved it.
Thanks Polycarp.
Thanks Polycarp.
Polycarp, you said: “Rabbi, as I posted this morning, the only circumcision that Paul considered valid was the spiritual circumcision. All other circumcision was merely for show.”
Eh, I’m not sure I agree 100% with that (Paul certainly felt it was valid for Timothy, and it didn’t seem to be for show), but I do agree that Paul made a ruling (which I agree with) men who are grafted into Israel after their eighth day of life are not required to undergo circumcision (or any other part or form of ritual conversion). I never meant to imply they should.
Polycarp, you said: “Rabbi, as I posted this morning, the only circumcision that Paul considered valid was the spiritual circumcision. All other circumcision was merely for show.”
Eh, I’m not sure I agree 100% with that (Paul certainly felt it was valid for Timothy, and it didn’t seem to be for show), but I do agree that Paul made a ruling (which I agree with) men who are grafted into Israel after their eighth day of life are not required to undergo circumcision (or any other part or form of ritual conversion). I never meant to imply they should.
Rabbi,
I believe that Paul allowed Timothy to be circumcised – he was Jewish on his mother’s side (!) – so that Timothy could join Paul in the Temple.
Hmm… It sounds like Paul did circumcised Timothy to appease the Jews in the area of Lystra and Iconium, ahd Timothy’s mother was a Jewish believer.
Acts 16:1-3
I think this is another example of being all things to all people (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
Hmm… It sounds like Paul did circumcised Timothy to appease the Jews in the area of Lystra and Iconium, ahd Timothy’s mother was a Jewish believer.
Acts 16:1-3
I think this is another example of being all things to all people (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
Wb,
I believe that Paul did so for exactly the reasons that Luke said – because it allowed Timothy into the places of the Jews, where Paul was going. Nowhere, however, do we see a command for physical circumcision – and we even see Paul resisting it for Titus’ sake. Yes, we have said this before, but a good answer has not be given yet concerning the difference.
Polycarp, you said, “I believe that Paul allowed Timothy to be circumcised – he was Jewish on his mother’s side (!) – so that Timothy could join Paul in the Temple.”
I think that was surely part of it… but how does that fit with the idea that it was “merely for show”.
Sorry if this is too personal… I don’t generally ask these questions of guys unless they get into the circumcision issue, and I don’t ask it out of judgment, just to look at the issue: are you guys circumcised? If you have sons, are they circumcised? If so, when were they circumcised?
Polycarp, you said, “I believe that Paul allowed Timothy to be circumcised – he was Jewish on his mother’s side (!) – so that Timothy could join Paul in the Temple.”
I think that was surely part of it… but how does that fit with the idea that it was “merely for show”.
Sorry if this is too personal… I don’t generally ask these questions of guys unless they get into the circumcision issue, and I don’t ask it out of judgment, just to look at the issue: are you guys circumcised? If you have sons, are they circumcised? If so, when were they circumcised?
Oh, I quite agree with you Polycarp. Re-reading it, it may be Paul wanted him circumcised for the area(s) they were going into. It may be the Temple was one of those places Paul had in mind, to give Timothy access, since he was 1/2 Jewish. But no, we see no command for physical cicumcision. We are to have our circumcised hearts, just as the Jews were SUPPOSED to have been (Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Romans 2:29), and some are.
We are actually told to not be cicumcised if we are not already.
1 Corinthians 7:18
Oh, I quite agree with you Polycarp. Re-reading it, it may be Paul wanted him circumcised for the area(s) they were going into. It may be the Temple was one of those places Paul had in mind, to give Timothy access, since he was 1/2 Jewish. But no, we see no command for physical cicumcision. We are to have our circumcised hearts, just as the Jews were SUPPOSED to have been (Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Romans 2:29), and some are.
We are actually told to not be cicumcised if we are not already.
1 Corinthians 7:18
Polycarp, you said, “Nowhere, however, do we see a command for physical circumcision.”
We don’t? What about Genesis 17, Exodus 12, and Leviticus 12?
Polycarp, you said, “Nowhere, however, do we see a command for physical circumcision.”
We don’t? What about Genesis 17, Exodus 12, and Leviticus 12?
Physical circumcision is unimportant. It is the condition of the heart that matters.
Paul wrote in Galatians 5:6,
And in Galatians 6:15
And in Philippians 3:2-3
We we see our cicumcision is not done by men, but by Christ Himself, in Colossians 2:10-12,
Physical circumcision is unimportant. It is the condition of the heart that matters.
Paul wrote in Galatians 5:6,
And in Galatians 6:15
And in Philippians 3:2-3
We we see our cicumcision is not done by men, but by Christ Himself, in Colossians 2:10-12,
wbmoore, your tone in saying, “We are to have our circumcised hearts, just as the Jews were SUPPOSED to have been (Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Romans 2:29), and some are” sounds like you don’t think many were. Odd, Paul seems to think differently. In Hebrews 3 & 4, he says our fathers in the desert had the same Gospel preached to them. In First Corinthians 10, Paul tells us they drank from a spirit-filled rock which is the Messiah. How can that happen to one whose heart is uncircumcised? Well, God still wasn’t pleased with them. Why? THEY BROKE HIS COMMANDMENTS, AND FOLLOWED AFTER PAGANISM. They gave into their “old man.”
wbmoore, your tone in saying, “We are to have our circumcised hearts, just as the Jews were SUPPOSED to have been (Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; Romans 2:29), and some are” sounds like you don’t think many were. Odd, Paul seems to think differently. In Hebrews 3 & 4, he says our fathers in the desert had the same Gospel preached to them. In First Corinthians 10, Paul tells us they drank from a spirit-filled rock which is the Messiah. How can that happen to one whose heart is uncircumcised? Well, God still wasn’t pleased with them. Why? THEY BROKE HIS COMMANDMENTS, AND FOLLOWED AFTER PAGANISM. They gave into their “old man.”
wbmoore, you’re dodging the question. I didn’t say you were required to as someone coming into faith. I asked a question. I have a reason for the question.
wbmoore, you’re dodging the question. I didn’t say you were required to as someone coming into faith. I asked a question. I have a reason for the question.
Rabbi,
Sorry I missed your question. Its not too personal for me. I am not circumcised (my mother was Roman Catholic and I believe she had wanted it done but as an infant I was deathly ill and it was not performed on me for health reasons, and afterwards it was not necessary). My brother is cicumcised (I have no idea at what age it occurred). My sons were circumcised before they left the hospital after birth, so it would have been day 2 or 3(I think they all left hospital before day 4). My wife had insisted on circumcision (supposedly for health reasons but I’m not convinced) and my understanding of NT scripture is that it does not really matter, though had I known about the possible health risks I might not have allowed it.
Rabbi,
Sorry I missed your question. Its not too personal for me. I am not circumcised (my mother was Roman Catholic and I believe she had wanted it done but as an infant I was deathly ill and it was not performed on me for health reasons, and afterwards it was not necessary). My brother is cicumcised (I have no idea at what age it occurred). My sons were circumcised before they left the hospital after birth, so it would have been day 2 or 3(I think they all left hospital before day 4). My wife had insisted on circumcision (supposedly for health reasons but I’m not convinced) and my understanding of NT scripture is that it does not really matter, though had I known about the possible health risks I might not have allowed it.
Rabbi,
Nothing personal in your questioning. What I mean is, is that Timothy was circumcised so as not to prevent him from preaching with Paul to the Jews in their their places, such as the Temple.
Yes, my son and I were circumcised, but before the 8th day, and not in the manner given to Moses. I guess it was for medical reasons.
Rabbi, let me rephrase – no where do we see a command in the NT…rather, we see commands against physical circumcision based on the Torah (As Wb quoted)
Rabbi, perhaps you could answer us the question concerning Paul’s prohibition against Titus’ circumcision, and Paul’s writing that consistently reflects the idea that circumcision must now be spiritual. And, please answer the question that was asked some time ago – must we still follow all 613 commandments found in the Torah?
Rabbi,
“sounds like you don’t think many were”
Sorry. I meant I did not think all of them were.
I meant to say “and some were”. I was referring to the remnant that God always has kept. I think the Israelites were not different than any other mass of people (except God chose them). People have this tendency to start out strong and then many fall away from their dedication to what ever the thing in question is. This is the same thing for following God, unfortunately. We see it in many local churches, with the few dedicated to God, and many just hanging out.
If they followed after paganism, then they did not have their hearts cicumcised.
We see in Hebrews 3:7-11
Rabbi,
“sounds like you don’t think many were”
Sorry. I meant I did not think all of them were.
I meant to say “and some were”. I was referring to the remnant that God always has kept. I think the Israelites were not different than any other mass of people (except God chose them). People have this tendency to start out strong and then many fall away from their dedication to what ever the thing in question is. This is the same thing for following God, unfortunately. We see it in many local churches, with the few dedicated to God, and many just hanging out.
If they followed after paganism, then they did not have their hearts cicumcised.
We see in Hebrews 3:7-11
All,
My step-father-in-law has passed away. Please pray for his wife and my wife and the rest of the family, and family unity and love. My wife is ill, yet we must travel.
All,
My step-father-in-law has passed away. Please pray for his wife and my wife and the rest of the family, and family unity and love. My wife is ill, yet we must travel.
Wb, you and your family will be in our prayers.
Praise God he knew Jesus.
Praise God he knew Jesus.
wbmoore, I’ll be praying for you and your family, that your grief will not be too difficult. In Judaism, when loved ones pass, we say the Mourner’s Kaddish, which is not a prayer of mourning but a paean of praise to the living God who created us and sustains us. I thought I would share with you the English translation. Remember as you read it, through your faith in Messiah Yeshua, you too are grafted into Israel:
“Magnified and sanctified be His great Name in the world which He created according to His will.
“May He establish His Kingdom during your lifetime and
during the lifetime of all the house of Israel, speedily, yes soon, and say, amen.
“Let His great Name be blessed for ever and for all eternity.
“Blessed, praised, and glorified, exalted, extolled and honored, magnified and lauded be the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He; though He is high above all the blessings and hymns, praises and songs which are uttered in the world, and say, amen.
“May the prayers and supplications of all Israel be accepted by our Father Who is in heaven, and say, amen.
“May there be peace in the heavenly realms, may He make peace for us and for all Israel, and say, amen.
“He Who makes peace in the heavenly realms, may He make peace for us and for all Israel, and say, Amen.”
And in the words of the Priestly Benediction of Aaron: “May the LORD bless you and keep you; May the LORD make His face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you; May The LORD lift up His countenance upon you, and give you shalom” — His Perfect Peace in our Messiah, Jesus.
wbmoore, I’ll be praying for you and your family, that your grief will not be too difficult. In Judaism, when loved ones pass, we say the Mourner’s Kaddish, which is not a prayer of mourning but a paean of praise to the living God who created us and sustains us. I thought I would share with you the English translation. Remember as you read it, through your faith in Messiah Yeshua, you too are grafted into Israel:
“Magnified and sanctified be His great Name in the world which He created according to His will.
“May He establish His Kingdom during your lifetime and
during the lifetime of all the house of Israel, speedily, yes soon, and say, amen.
“Let His great Name be blessed for ever and for all eternity.
“Blessed, praised, and glorified, exalted, extolled and honored, magnified and lauded be the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He; though He is high above all the blessings and hymns, praises and songs which are uttered in the world, and say, amen.
“May the prayers and supplications of all Israel be accepted by our Father Who is in heaven, and say, amen.
“May there be peace in the heavenly realms, may He make peace for us and for all Israel, and say, amen.
“He Who makes peace in the heavenly realms, may He make peace for us and for all Israel, and say, Amen.”
And in the words of the Priestly Benediction of Aaron: “May the LORD bless you and keep you; May the LORD make His face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you; May The LORD lift up His countenance upon you, and give you shalom” — His Perfect Peace in our Messiah, Jesus.
That is beautiful Rabbi. Thank you for sharing it. I will share it with my family. We shall be leaving soon.
I hope to be able to find time to continue this conversation, yet my family and the other suffering sadness take precedence at the moment. I’m sure you understand.
God bless.
In the Precious Name of Our Savior, Lord Christ Jesus,
wbmoore
That is beautiful Rabbi. Thank you for sharing it. I will share it with my family. We shall be leaving soon.
I hope to be able to find time to continue this conversation, yet my family and the other suffering sadness take precedence at the moment. I’m sure you understand.
God bless.
In the Precious Name of Our Savior, Lord Christ Jesus,
wbmoore
Rabbi, that is truly beautiful, and I am glad that you chose to share it.
[...] Joel Osteen teaches hard things – No Pork or Shellfish « The … (thechurchofjesuschrist.wordpress.com) – February 10, 200911 Responses to ‘Joel Osteen teaches hard things – No Pork or Shellfish’. Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to ‘Joel Osteen teaches hard things – No Pork or Shellfish’. It’s much easier to e… more Joel Osteen Website blog posts … [...]
I believe when Yashua or any of the Apostles were refering to “law” they meant the laws of men…
Torah means instructions and teaching in Hebrew.
I do not understand how most of Christianity denies His Torah, His Sabbath, His Festivals, when he left complete instructions that we are to follow them forever..what does forever mean?
When we accepted Yashua as our Savior, we became CHILDREN OF ISRAEL..
Therefore he did not mean the Torah, the Festivals, and the Sabbath only for the tribe of Judah, He meant them for all of us.
Salvation is through Yahsua, but our walk with Him, our relationship with him, is much better if we live by Torah and honor His Sabbaths and Festivals…I DID NOT COME TO CHANGE ONE TITTLE OF THE TORAH
Rick, Christ plainly meant the Law of Moses, even the Pharisees understood that. The Torah was for Israel, not just one tribe. Maybe you can answer this, Rick, are we to obey all 613 commandments of the Law?
Christ never said that line that you quote. Please show me where I am wrong.
Rick,
Christ was clear He came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17-20). He said it is finished (John 19:30) when He finished fulfilling what was written about Him the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:40-48). Paul was clear we are to not be bogged down worrying about special days, or food (Galatians 4:8-11; Romans 14:1-8; 1Corinthians 8:8-13; Colossians 2:13-17).
I have more on these issues at http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/grace-law-and-the-christian/ .
For those who believe we should follow the Law, what do you do with these verses that specifically state we are not under the law?
Colossians 2:13-16
Romans 10:2-4
Galatians 3:23-26
Ephesians 2:13-16
Romans 7:4-6
For those who believe we should follow the Law, what do you do with these verses that specifically state we are not under the law?
Colossians 2:13-16
Romans 10:2-4
Galatians 3:23-26
Ephesians 2:13-16
Romans 7:4-6
You know, Wb, if you keep backing them into a corner, you will never let them answer if we have to follow all 613 commandments. (sarcasm, here – keep preaching it!)
As you know, this is of great interest to me. I just can’t find anything that supports the idea that we are to follow the Law, but I find much to indicate we are NOT to do so.
As you know, this is of great interest to me. I just can’t find anything that supports the idea that we are to follow the Law, but I find much to indicate we are NOT to do so.
Wb, we all have our areas of specialty, it seems. I agree with you – I do not understand the logic of Christ fulfilling the Law and then demanding that we follow it. The Law was a temporary thing, pointing us to Christ.
“I do not understand the logic of Christ fulfilling the Law and then demanding that we follow it.”
I love that statement! It really makes no sense to say Christ fulfilled it and then somehow it still applies.
“I do not understand the logic of Christ fulfilling the Law and then demanding that we follow it.”
I love that statement! It really makes no sense to say Christ fulfilled it and then somehow it still applies.
I don’t have a lot of time here, so I will address a couple of points made:
wb, I don’t see how it makes sense to say Yeshua’s fulfillment of the Torah means it’s over, especially given His statement He came not to abolish. Taking the statement literally, your interpretation sounds a whole lot like abolishment.
Think of it this way: if you keep every law on the books in this country… does that mean you never have to keep them again, or that no one else does? The notion that one person keeping all of a law code canceling the law code doesn’t make any sense to me.
Polycarp, how do you get the Torah being abolished from John 19:30? “It is finished” doesn’t specify what “it” is, and the fact that He then DIED indicates that his SACRIFICIAL DEATH has been completed. Your logic does not follow.
Now, to answer the question “Do we have to keep all 613 commandments?”
We have to keep all of the commandments that apply to us and are capable of fulfillment. For example, some commandments are just for men, so women cannot keep them, and vice versa. Some commandments are just for priests, so non-priests cannot fulfill them. Commandments directly connected to the Temple cannot be kept — for example, we cannot keep the Passover Sacrifice today, because there is no Temple at which to sacrifice it, and we are commanded not to sacrifice it anywhere else. The Passover seder is a Remembrance, and one actually COMMANDED DIRECTLY BY YESHUA (Luke 22 — they were keeping the Passover seder, and the taking of a piece of bread and a cup of wine immediately following dinner is a specific known part of it). The rest of what is called “Passover” is actually the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (a separate feast) and Paul tells us to keep it (1 Corinthians 5:8).
I don’t have a lot of time here, so I will address a couple of points made:
wb, I don’t see how it makes sense to say Yeshua’s fulfillment of the Torah means it’s over, especially given His statement He came not to abolish. Taking the statement literally, your interpretation sounds a whole lot like abolishment.
Think of it this way: if you keep every law on the books in this country… does that mean you never have to keep them again, or that no one else does? The notion that one person keeping all of a law code canceling the law code doesn’t make any sense to me.
Polycarp, how do you get the Torah being abolished from John 19:30? “It is finished” doesn’t specify what “it” is, and the fact that He then DIED indicates that his SACRIFICIAL DEATH has been completed. Your logic does not follow.
Now, to answer the question “Do we have to keep all 613 commandments?”
We have to keep all of the commandments that apply to us and are capable of fulfillment. For example, some commandments are just for men, so women cannot keep them, and vice versa. Some commandments are just for priests, so non-priests cannot fulfill them. Commandments directly connected to the Temple cannot be kept — for example, we cannot keep the Passover Sacrifice today, because there is no Temple at which to sacrifice it, and we are commanded not to sacrifice it anywhere else. The Passover seder is a Remembrance, and one actually COMMANDED DIRECTLY BY YESHUA (Luke 22 — they were keeping the Passover seder, and the taking of a piece of bread and a cup of wine immediately following dinner is a specific known part of it). The rest of what is called “Passover” is actually the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (a separate feast) and Paul tells us to keep it (1 Corinthians 5:8).
Rabbi, you should stay.
I never got that the Torah was fulfilled from John 19.30. Christ Himself, along with the New Testament writers said that the Law was fulfilled – not ended or destroyed or abolish, but completed and we are no longer under. It is not that Christ merely kept it, but fulfilled it, and thus completed everything that was required for the ceremonial Law. Instead of assuming my words, read or ask.
Rabbi, there was a temple today, would we then be required to sacrifice?
Are we required to stone homosexuals, blasphemers, unruly children, and adulterous spouses? Should we wipe out idolatrous cities and nations? Rabbi, you put yourself in a box and dismiss the work of Jesus Christ. Christ was not merely keeping Seder, but was instituting the breaking of the body of Christ, and of a remembrance of the only sacrifice that is now needed. And you would dismiss this?
I’m not leaving, just cannot respond much.
I know what you are saying, I’m saying you’re wrong. John 19:30 has not a thing to do with the Torah, but you said it did. There’s nothing in the text to indicate it is.
There is no such thing as the “ceremonial Law.” Torah tells us specifically there is one Torah (mistranslated “Law”). We read this in Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:16 and Numbers 15:29. There is no division of the commandments into “ceremonial Law” and “moral Law” in Scripture.
There is no logic to the statement that fulfill = cancel. None.
You ask if there was a Temple today, would we be required to make sacrifices. Certainly, because not all the sacrifices are sin sacrifices!
You ask if we are to stone “homosexuals, blasphemers, unruly children, and adulterous spouses”. We do not live under a Torah theocracy, and we cannot supercede the law of the countries in which we live — this, too, is a commandments — and thus no, we cannot.
You ask if we are to wipe out idolatrous cities and nations. That was not a general commandment, it was a commandment to the Israelites at the time they entered the Land. That was a commandment specified for a specific time, place, and situation, and thus no, we are not required to do this today.
And no, I am not “putting myself in a box and dismissing the work of Jesus Christ.” I have a different view of what that work is.
And I didn’t say He was “merely keeping the Seder.” As with the Torah, He explained the Seder’s full meaning.
I’m not leaving, just cannot respond much.
I know what you are saying, I’m saying you’re wrong. John 19:30 has not a thing to do with the Torah, but you said it did. There’s nothing in the text to indicate it is.
There is no such thing as the “ceremonial Law.” Torah tells us specifically there is one Torah (mistranslated “Law”). We read this in Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:16 and Numbers 15:29. There is no division of the commandments into “ceremonial Law” and “moral Law” in Scripture.
There is no logic to the statement that fulfill = cancel. None.
You ask if there was a Temple today, would we be required to make sacrifices. Certainly, because not all the sacrifices are sin sacrifices!
You ask if we are to stone “homosexuals, blasphemers, unruly children, and adulterous spouses”. We do not live under a Torah theocracy, and we cannot supercede the law of the countries in which we live — this, too, is a commandments — and thus no, we cannot.
You ask if we are to wipe out idolatrous cities and nations. That was not a general commandment, it was a commandment to the Israelites at the time they entered the Land. That was a commandment specified for a specific time, place, and situation, and thus no, we are not required to do this today.
And no, I am not “putting myself in a box and dismissing the work of Jesus Christ.” I have a different view of what that work is.
And I didn’t say He was “merely keeping the Seder.” As with the Torah, He explained the Seder’s full meaning.
Rabbi, I suggest you go back and quote me where I said John 19.30 had anything to do with it.
Actually, you said that there was a difference in the Law, Rabbi. Not more than 15 minutes ago. You even said that there was a division in the Law.
I never said fulfill meant cancel. I said complete. Two very different words.
Hebrew 10.8 says that the sacrifices were not wanted by God and did not please Him, while 10.12 says that Christ is out sacrifice for sin, once and forever. So, if we no longer need to sacrifice for sin, and the other sacrifices had no pleasure for God, then you would have do vain things, empty, and dismissive of the work of Jesus Christ. Further, you contradict yourself. If the in sacrifice was only for a certain time, and we are no longer required to do it today….well, Rabbi, do you see the contradiction?
The Seder is a tradition developed by men, Rabbi. Christ anointed that Tradition and turned it into Doctrine.
Rabbi,
I’m the one who said John 19:30 was Jesus saying He had finished the work to fulfill the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44-49).
I did not say fulfill = cancel. I said that Christ fulfilled the Law. This indicates the debt of the Law had been met and therefore the requirements were no longer in force. The effect is the same as cancel (in that the debt no longer has to be paid), but the cause is different. Rather than simply abolish the debt of the Law, Christ met it, fulfilled it. In doing so, we are no longer under the requirements of the Law.
How else do you reconcile Matthew 5:17 with Colossians 2:13-16, Romans 10:2-4, Ephesians 2:13-16, Romans 7:4-6?
Rabbi,
I’m the one who said John 19:30 was Jesus saying He had finished the work to fulfill the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44-49).
I did not say fulfill = cancel. I said that Christ fulfilled the Law. This indicates the debt of the Law had been met and therefore the requirements were no longer in force. The effect is the same as cancel (in that the debt no longer has to be paid), but the cause is different. Rather than simply abolish the debt of the Law, Christ met it, fulfilled it. In doing so, we are no longer under the requirements of the Law.
How else do you reconcile Matthew 5:17 with Colossians 2:13-16, Romans 10:2-4, Ephesians 2:13-16, Romans 7:4-6?
I still do not see how you can say fulfillment achieves the same result as cancellation. By their fruits you shall know them. Read the Messianic prophecies. Messiah must uphold Torah, not in any way detract from it, and there is no argument by which doing away with its following is not detracting from it.
Col 2:13-16 — Messiah canceled the written ruling against us for disobedience of Torah. That does not give us a license to violate it.
Romans 10:2-4 — “End of the Law” is a total mistranslation. The word used in the Greek manuscripts “telos” means “goal,” not “termination.” Messiah is the goal towards which Torah aims, since He fulfills it all, thus showing His righteousness.
Ephesians 2:13-16 — Messiah has put to death the ENMITY — the separation between God and man because of our sin. That doesn’t give a license to sin.
Romans 7:4-6 — Keep reading through verse 16.
Now, let me ask you: is salvation a license to sin? Because breaking Torah is the definition of sin (1 John 3:4, Romans 3 :20, Romans 6:15, Romans 7:7, 2 Timothy 3:16, and others).
I still do not see how you can say fulfillment achieves the same result as cancellation. By their fruits you shall know them. Read the Messianic prophecies. Messiah must uphold Torah, not in any way detract from it, and there is no argument by which doing away with its following is not detracting from it.
Col 2:13-16 — Messiah canceled the written ruling against us for disobedience of Torah. That does not give us a license to violate it.
Romans 10:2-4 — “End of the Law” is a total mistranslation. The word used in the Greek manuscripts “telos” means “goal,” not “termination.” Messiah is the goal towards which Torah aims, since He fulfills it all, thus showing His righteousness.
Ephesians 2:13-16 — Messiah has put to death the ENMITY — the separation between God and man because of our sin. That doesn’t give a license to sin.
Romans 7:4-6 — Keep reading through verse 16.
Now, let me ask you: is salvation a license to sin? Because breaking Torah is the definition of sin (1 John 3:4, Romans 3 :20, Romans 6:15, Romans 7:7, 2 Timothy 3:16, and others).
Rabbi,
You fail to understand me. Christ didn’t cancel the Law; Christ fulfilled the Law. Taking away our Sin was the Goal of the Law, but in what the Law could never do – remitting our sins – Christ did, thus He was the End (Goal) of the Law.
No one is saying that Salvation is a License to Sin – Grace calls us from Sin. Paul answered this in Romans. You have admitted yourself that the requirement of sacrifice for sin is no longer needed, and that the Law was divided among people and classes. Rabbi, you have given us our own argument in your own words.
Rabbi,
You fail to understand me. Christ didn’t cancel the Law; Christ fulfilled the Law. Taking away our Sin was the Goal of the Law, but in what the Law could never do – remitting our sins – Christ did, thus He was the End (Goal) of the Law.
No one is saying that Salvation is a License to Sin – Grace calls us from Sin. Paul answered this in Romans. You have admitted yourself that the requirement of sacrifice for sin is no longer needed, and that the Law was divided among people and classes. Rabbi, you have given us our own argument in your own words.
Rabbi,
Hmm. I am reading what you have written, yet, I do not see reconciliation of the text. I may be wrong, but it seems you are ignoring certain verses. Of course, I probably am also. I’m trying to reconcile what you are saying with what I understand scripture to say.
You wrote, “Col 2:13-16 — Messiah canceled the written ruling against us for disobedience of Torah. That does not give us a license to violate it.”
Verse 13 tells us that Christ made us alive, having forgiven our sins.
Verse 14 tells us that Christ cancelled the debt (which is what I have been saying), with verse 15 telling us Christ triumped.
Verse 16 tells us to not be judged by others in respect to what we eat or drink, or what days we celebrate.
Note, Christ cancelled the DEBT.
You further wrote, “Romans 10:2-4 — “End of the Law” is a total mistranslation. The word used in the Greek manuscripts “telos” means “goal,” not “termination.” Messiah is the goal towards which Torah aims, since He fulfills it all, thus showing His righteousness.”
In fact, the meaning of Telos is end, termination.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5056&version=nas
But even if you were correct, in that Christ is the end of the Law meaning Christ was aim/goal of the Law, once the aim is accomplished, there is no further purpose for the Law.
You wrote, “Ephesians 2:13-16 — Messiah has put to death the ENMITY — the separation between God and man because of our sin. That doesn’t give a license to sin.”
Ephesians 2:13-14 tells us Jews and Gentiles were brought near to each other and to God by the blood of Christ, who broke down the dividing wall between man and God.
But notice how Christ did this, in verses 15-16, he abolished the enmity, which is the Law.
You wrote, “Romans 7:4-6 — Keep reading through verse 16.”
Please do not ignore verse 4, which tells us we died to the Law through the work of Christ.
Also, we can not ignore verse 6, which tells us we are released from the Law and are supposed to serve in the spirit, not by the letter of the Law.
But as for verse 16, When we go against what God tells our conscience to do or not do, we are doing what is not loving, and so we are agreeing with the Law, calling it good.
I am not saying the Law is bad. I am saying its purpose has been met. The Law brings spiritual death (Romans 7:9), and points us to our need for Christ. I am saying it has served its purpose, and so we have been set free from it.
Romans 8:2
As for sin, I am not saying we have license to sin (Jude 1:4). But this also does not mean we are to follow the regulations in the Law. Romans 7 tells us we are to live by the spirit, not the flesh. Sin is a matter of the heart as well as what we do. Our actions might be “good” but our spirit is not renewed. If we are living by the Spirit of God, then both our inner man and our outer man will reflect the love of God. We will naturally follow what God wants us to do. If on the other hand, we choose to ignore God in our hearts, then we are sinning – doing what Paul said about confessing the Law is good. The Law was a list of things to do and not do, but it is for mankind to treat it like a list, rather than to trust in God. It is GOD we must put our trust in. If we do, we will live right. If we do not, we will not live right. The doing of these things will not make us righteous. I think that keeping the Law, as something that needs to be done, will not result in us living righteously, but in living for the Law instead of for God. Where as if we love God, we will follow the spirit, rather than the letter. And in so doing, we will walk as God wants us to walk.
I have a series of posts regarding holy living and sin:
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/index-by-topic/holiness-and-sanctification/
Rabbi,
Hmm. I am reading what you have written, yet, I do not see reconciliation of the text. I may be wrong, but it seems you are ignoring certain verses. Of course, I probably am also. I’m trying to reconcile what you are saying with what I understand scripture to say.
You wrote, “Col 2:13-16 — Messiah canceled the written ruling against us for disobedience of Torah. That does not give us a license to violate it.”
Verse 13 tells us that Christ made us alive, having forgiven our sins.
Verse 14 tells us that Christ cancelled the debt (which is what I have been saying), with verse 15 telling us Christ triumped.
Verse 16 tells us to not be judged by others in respect to what we eat or drink, or what days we celebrate.
Note, Christ cancelled the DEBT.
You further wrote, “Romans 10:2-4 — “End of the Law” is a total mistranslation. The word used in the Greek manuscripts “telos” means “goal,” not “termination.” Messiah is the goal towards which Torah aims, since He fulfills it all, thus showing His righteousness.”
In fact, the meaning of Telos is end, termination.
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5056&version=nas
But even if you were correct, in that Christ is the end of the Law meaning Christ was aim/goal of the Law, once the aim is accomplished, there is no further purpose for the Law.
You wrote, “Ephesians 2:13-16 — Messiah has put to death the ENMITY — the separation between God and man because of our sin. That doesn’t give a license to sin.”
Ephesians 2:13-14 tells us Jews and Gentiles were brought near to each other and to God by the blood of Christ, who broke down the dividing wall between man and God.
But notice how Christ did this, in verses 15-16, he abolished the enmity, which is the Law.
You wrote, “Romans 7:4-6 — Keep reading through verse 16.”
Please do not ignore verse 4, which tells us we died to the Law through the work of Christ.
Also, we can not ignore verse 6, which tells us we are released from the Law and are supposed to serve in the spirit, not by the letter of the Law.
But as for verse 16, When we go against what God tells our conscience to do or not do, we are doing what is not loving, and so we are agreeing with the Law, calling it good.
I am not saying the Law is bad. I am saying its purpose has been met. The Law brings spiritual death (Romans 7:9), and points us to our need for Christ. I am saying it has served its purpose, and so we have been set free from it.
Romans 8:2
As for sin, I am not saying we have license to sin (Jude 1:4). But this also does not mean we are to follow the regulations in the Law. Romans 7 tells us we are to live by the spirit, not the flesh. Sin is a matter of the heart as well as what we do. Our actions might be “good” but our spirit is not renewed. If we are living by the Spirit of God, then both our inner man and our outer man will reflect the love of God. We will naturally follow what God wants us to do. If on the other hand, we choose to ignore God in our hearts, then we are sinning – doing what Paul said about confessing the Law is good. The Law was a list of things to do and not do, but it is for mankind to treat it like a list, rather than to trust in God. It is GOD we must put our trust in. If we do, we will live right. If we do not, we will not live right. The doing of these things will not make us righteous. I think that keeping the Law, as something that needs to be done, will not result in us living righteously, but in living for the Law instead of for God. Where as if we love God, we will follow the spirit, rather than the letter. And in so doing, we will walk as God wants us to walk.
I have a series of posts regarding holy living and sin:
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/index-by-topic/holiness-and-sanctification/
Wb, as always, well said. How can anyone argue at this systematic explanation?
Polycarp.
Thanks. But I am beginning to think we are not understanding each other. We understand the words each of us are using, but I’m beginning to think we are not understanding the message each of us are trying to share.
Rabbi, I am not saying we are free to o whatever we want. Yes, the Law tells us what God calls good and bad. What I am saying is that if we live by the Spirit, then we will naturally do what God wants us to do.
Where I wrote, ” but it is for mankind to treat it like a list”, I meant to write, ” but it is easy for mankind to treat it like a list”.
Polycarp.
Thanks. But I am beginning to think we are not understanding each other. We understand the words each of us are using, but I’m beginning to think we are not understanding the message each of us are trying to share.
Rabbi, I am not saying we are free to o whatever we want. Yes, the Law tells us what God calls good and bad. What I am saying is that if we live by the Spirit, then we will naturally do what God wants us to do.
Where I wrote, ” but it is for mankind to treat it like a list”, I meant to write, ” but it is easy for mankind to treat it like a list”.
Wb, the words are the same, but the meanings are different. A previous Rabbi mentioned that he received his lexicon from others in the Messianic movement. (I assume you mean that we, you and I, and they, the Messianic Rabbi’s, are not understanding each other.) This is the problem with letting theology guide one’s understanding of the Scriptures instead of letting the Scriptures guide our theology.
Polycarp,
Yes I meant you and I seem to be sharing one message and the Rabbi is sharing another message, although we are using the same words. I came Christ as an adult. I try hard to not use bible-ese, but even so, I sometimes find myself falling into it from the education I have received. Many in the church culture use words with a specific meaning that can easily be lost when speaking to those not of the church culture. I have always tried to not come to a particular idea from my understanding and find scripture to prove it. I think I’ve been fairly successful in that area. But even so, I think it is easy to try to proof text our ideas, rather than letting scripture guide us.
Because we come from what appears to be diametrically opposed positions, I do not think people such as you and I can easily communicate with those who come from the Messianic tradition, such as the Rabbi. So while we use the same words, I think we are meaning different things. Its like someone who speaks English, but whose first language is not English, trying to communicate an intricate message with someone whose first language is English. While the words are technically correct, the message is not being transmitted correctly.
I realize I am coming across as argumentative, but I’m trying to get the Rabbi to show me I am wrong. I am not being successful.
I have discussed this matter with men and women and Rabbis and laymen. None of them have been able to refute the scriptures regarding the Law having been fulfilled, and so not being in effect any more, to my satisfaction. Every time someone brings up an issue in this area that I had not considered before, I search out scripture concerning it. Each time, to date, I have not found reconciliation between what the Messianic movement folks are teaching regarding the Law with what scripture teaches us in that area.
Perhaps I unknowingly have a vested interest in not understanding. I am praying about this. But I do not think I am wrong on this issue, based on scripture I have read concerning this. There have been times when I thought one way (in a different area), and scripture showed me I was wrong, so I changed. To date, this has not been the case for the idea of following the Law.
Polycarp,
Yes I meant you and I seem to be sharing one message and the Rabbi is sharing another message, although we are using the same words. I came Christ as an adult. I try hard to not use bible-ese, but even so, I sometimes find myself falling into it from the education I have received. Many in the church culture use words with a specific meaning that can easily be lost when speaking to those not of the church culture. I have always tried to not come to a particular idea from my understanding and find scripture to prove it. I think I’ve been fairly successful in that area. But even so, I think it is easy to try to proof text our ideas, rather than letting scripture guide us.
Because we come from what appears to be diametrically opposed positions, I do not think people such as you and I can easily communicate with those who come from the Messianic tradition, such as the Rabbi. So while we use the same words, I think we are meaning different things. Its like someone who speaks English, but whose first language is not English, trying to communicate an intricate message with someone whose first language is English. While the words are technically correct, the message is not being transmitted correctly.
I realize I am coming across as argumentative, but I’m trying to get the Rabbi to show me I am wrong. I am not being successful.
I have discussed this matter with men and women and Rabbis and laymen. None of them have been able to refute the scriptures regarding the Law having been fulfilled, and so not being in effect any more, to my satisfaction. Every time someone brings up an issue in this area that I had not considered before, I search out scripture concerning it. Each time, to date, I have not found reconciliation between what the Messianic movement folks are teaching regarding the Law with what scripture teaches us in that area.
Perhaps I unknowingly have a vested interest in not understanding. I am praying about this. But I do not think I am wrong on this issue, based on scripture I have read concerning this. There have been times when I thought one way (in a different area), and scripture showed me I was wrong, so I changed. To date, this has not been the case for the idea of following the Law.
Wb, two things, one right, one wrong. Let me offer some correction, first:
No, Wb, you do not. You have a zeal for God, and you have a foundation. It is not argumentative for the sake of argument; you are doing this because of your love of Grace, and I would assume your heart for Truth.
Second, you are right
You are not wrong on this issue.
Thanks for both of those. And yes, I love the Truth.
Interesting discussion of the question of the “yoke our fathers were unable to bear”:
http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/teaching/yoke-burden-messiah-moses/
Interesting discussion of the question of the “yoke our fathers were unable to bear”:
http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/teaching/yoke-burden-messiah-moses/
Rabbi,
Thanks for the link. You can guess my position, I think, but I’ll respond tomorrow. Hope all is well with you.
I read the link.
Minor typo, where the author wrote, “Gen 18:18″, I believe he meant Ex 18:18.
The author’s premise is, in Acts 15:10, ” the “yoke” that neither we nor our “fathers” could bear refers not to the halacha itself (that is, the way of walking out the Torah), but rather is the responsibility for deciding and learning and knowing halacha for oneself, and learning and teaching the Torah for oneself.”
He makes the assumption that the burden Moses had in Exodus 18:14-23 was, “determining/teaching/knowing halacha for the people in accordance to the Torah.” However, he is mistaken. Moses still continued to judge after this, but it was easier. Why? Because the burden was not the “determining/teaching/knowing halacha for the people.” The burden was the amount of work – trying to judge for so many people, not the actual teaching and judging, but the amount of it. After others were judging, the work load was lighter. Thus his whole premise is flawed.
He wrote, “These second-class converts would be responsible for determining halacha (getting circumcised/converted first) and learning Torah on their own, outside of a synagogue, ”
But Acts 15:5 says the Pharisees wanted the Gentile believers to follow the Law. verse 10 complains about a yoke the Jews could not bear. It can not simply be ” determining (coming to know) halacha (way of walking out Torah – of being a disciple) and teaching it.” If that was the case, then certainly being circumcised and following the Law would meet that, since as verse 21 tells us, Moses was taught in the synagogues weekly. But in fact, rather than being told to follow the Law, as the sect of the Pharisees wanted, they were told only a few things to avoid.
I read the link.
Minor typo, where the author wrote, “Gen 18:18″, I believe he meant Ex 18:18.
The author’s premise is, in Acts 15:10, ” the “yoke” that neither we nor our “fathers” could bear refers not to the halacha itself (that is, the way of walking out the Torah), but rather is the responsibility for deciding and learning and knowing halacha for oneself, and learning and teaching the Torah for oneself.”
He makes the assumption that the burden Moses had in Exodus 18:14-23 was, “determining/teaching/knowing halacha for the people in accordance to the Torah.” However, he is mistaken. Moses still continued to judge after this, but it was easier. Why? Because the burden was not the “determining/teaching/knowing halacha for the people.” The burden was the amount of work – trying to judge for so many people, not the actual teaching and judging, but the amount of it. After others were judging, the work load was lighter. Thus his whole premise is flawed.
He wrote, “These second-class converts would be responsible for determining halacha (getting circumcised/converted first) and learning Torah on their own, outside of a synagogue, ”
But Acts 15:5 says the Pharisees wanted the Gentile believers to follow the Law. verse 10 complains about a yoke the Jews could not bear. It can not simply be ” determining (coming to know) halacha (way of walking out Torah – of being a disciple) and teaching it.” If that was the case, then certainly being circumcised and following the Law would meet that, since as verse 21 tells us, Moses was taught in the synagogues weekly. But in fact, rather than being told to follow the Law, as the sect of the Pharisees wanted, they were told only a few things to avoid.
Try teaching people to obey the commandments. Look how fast people get mad at you when you do that. Even preachers get mad when they are told that they are supposed to keep the commandments.
Good for Joel to tell people they should obey God and eat what He calls food fit for His people to eat. Oh, the laws for clean and unclean are found in Leviticus 11.
Lamb, do we have to follow all 613 commandments? And, btw, the laws of what we can eat is in Acts 10
Mark 7:18-20 (New International Version)
No, just funny that he will not preach on any substantive, but will give dieting advice.
I have to have my ham! And my thick fried pork chops…smothered in mushroom soup, with big buttermilk bisquits and lots of ice tea…I want to make it to heaven a little faster than the rest of you.
Well, cannibalism is bad, but I am not sure what denomination actually teaches that one.
Greg, not sure you are getting the light hearted banter.
Rabbi, do you except the New Covenant as Scripture?
Rabbi,
The New Covenant writings, since there is a New Covenant and this writings are under them, I see no reason not to call them the New Covenant writings, tells us that God has allowed the erasing of the dietary laws. Remember, although we like to say First and Old when referring to the Mosaic Law, in fact, it was not the first, with Adam, Noah, and Abraham all receiving covenants. Once these covenants have been fulfilled or broken, then there is another covenant. This vision of Peter is a reminder of what Christ preached in Mark 7.14-19.
You tell us that they were misunderstood, but please, tell us how we are to properly understand something relatively simple.
I will not disagree that not eating pork has it’s advantages.
No, it was written yet, as He had yet to die.
And
Before I go on, let me state that those of Jewish blood, I have no problem with them celebrating their heritage and ancestral religion, as long as it does not contradict Grace. I have more on this subject.
Rabbi, I can offer no better an answer than Wb’s. I believe that we are of the same mind here – he and I; however, you have not fully satisfied my question. Why do you consider us, the Church, not to be under the New Covenant when Christ said that we were, and the entire book of Hebrews warned against the apostasy of some who were slipping back into Judaism? Remember, as Wb pointed out, Hebrews expounds the passage in Jeremiah.
Further, Rabbi, let me say that I am enjoying this conversation, as it is most helpful to be able to discuss things in a civilized manner.
My point exactly. I would make a difference, at least in my mind, of celebrating the Law and following the Law (although this is semantic).
We have to remember, there are certain points of the Law that would be detrimental to Grace.
That’s pretty clear, Wb.
Tammy, the good Rabbi is wrong. There is no proof to the Rabbi’s words, except by those intent on destroying the message of Grace of Jesus Christ. Christ fulfilled the Law – remember, Paul called it our schoolmaster, in that the Law was to teach us of Christ and His Church. Once Christ was arrived and suffered the Cross, our ‘schooling’ was done. Christ fulfilled the Law in that He took up Himself the sins of the World, and gave us what the Law could not – true forgiveness.
Remember, if the Law was still in effect today, we could stone unruly children and would be required to offer yearly sacrifices of various animals. Christ fulfilled the Law, so we are no longer under the Law.
Amen, Tammy, amen. (and you are welcome)
I saw that – and I saw that when his questions were answered, he failed to give any better responses.
Rabbi, it seems to me that the only ‘good faith’ argument that you desire is one which is in agreement with you.
Not once in Scripture do we see anyone say that we come to Christ by Faith, but have to return to the Law. This is exactly what the writer of the letter to the Hebrews was trying to avoid. We are not commanded to observe the Law, or else, no more Grace. The Law is completely Works, but Grace is not.
Tell me, do we have to observe all the Law? Or just the holidays and the dietary rules? Do we observe all 613 commandants or just the big 10?
Concerning the fulfill/abolish issue:
Robertson says,
Irenaeus, the Church Father, says,
John Gill, an early Protestant commentator, says this
The most dangerous Protestant of them all, John Calvin says, it this way,
God fulfilled all the ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses, and took upon Him our sins, so that we no longer have to follow works.
Rabbi, you mention that you have support, but only from those with your agenda. The same could be said of us – although I am sure we might object. But, tell me, do we follow the entire Law after Grace?
I believe when Yashua or any of the Apostles were refering to “law” they meant the laws of men…
Torah means instructions and teaching in Hebrew.
I do not understand how most of Christianity denies His Torah, His Sabbath, His Festivals, when he left complete instructions that we are to follow them forever..what does forever mean?
When we accepted Yashua as our Savior, we became CHILDREN OF ISRAEL..
Therefore he did not mean the Torah, the Festivals, and the Sabbath only for the tribe of Judah, He meant them for all of us.
Salvation is through Yahsua, but our walk with Him, our relationship with him, is much better if we live by Torah and honor His Sabbaths and Festivals…I DID NOT COME TO CHANGE ONE TITTLE OF THE TORAH
Rabbi, please provide documentation where people were told to obey the Torah. And please answer the question, are we now required to keep the entire Torah? All 613 commandments?
Further,
Well said, Wb
Rabbi, are we to obey all 613 commandments of the Law? Further, why was it that Paul resisted the circumcision of Titus and then wrote a book (Galatians) about his experiences?
Rabbi, as I posted this morning, the only circumcision that Paul considered valid was the spiritual circumcision. All other circumcision was merely for show.
Saved it.
Rabbi,
I believe that Paul allowed Timothy to be circumcised – he was Jewish on his mother’s side (!) – so that Timothy could join Paul in the Temple.
Wb,
I believe that Paul did so for exactly the reasons that Luke said – because it allowed Timothy into the places of the Jews, where Paul was going. Nowhere, however, do we see a command for physical circumcision – and we even see Paul resisting it for Titus’ sake. Yes, we have said this before, but a good answer has not be given yet concerning the difference.
Rabbi,
Nothing personal in your questioning. What I mean is, is that Timothy was circumcised so as not to prevent him from preaching with Paul to the Jews in their their places, such as the Temple.
Yes, my son and I were circumcised, but before the 8th day, and not in the manner given to Moses. I guess it was for medical reasons.
Rabbi, let me rephrase – no where do we see a command in the NT…rather, we see commands against physical circumcision based on the Torah (As Wb quoted)
Rabbi, perhaps you could answer us the question concerning Paul’s prohibition against Titus’ circumcision, and Paul’s writing that consistently reflects the idea that circumcision must now be spiritual. And, please answer the question that was asked some time ago – must we still follow all 613 commandments found in the Torah?
Wb, you and your family will be in our prayers.
Rabbi, that is truly beautiful, and I am glad that you chose to share it.
Rick, Christ plainly meant the Law of Moses, even the Pharisees understood that. The Torah was for Israel, not just one tribe. Maybe you can answer this, Rick, are we to obey all 613 commandments of the Law?
Christ never said that line that you quote. Please show me where I am wrong.
Rick,
Christ was clear He came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17-20). He said it is finished (John 19:30) when He finished fulfilling what was written about Him the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:40-48). Paul was clear we are to not be bogged down worrying about special days, or food (Galatians 4:8-11; Romans 14:1-8; 1Corinthians 8:8-13; Colossians 2:13-17).
I have more on these issues at http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/grace-law-and-the-christian/ .
You know, Wb, if you keep backing them into a corner, you will never let them answer if we have to follow all 613 commandments. (sarcasm, here – keep preaching it!)
Wb, we all have our areas of specialty, it seems. I agree with you – I do not understand the logic of Christ fulfilling the Law and then demanding that we follow it. The Law was a temporary thing, pointing us to Christ.
Rabbi, you should stay.
I never got that the Torah was fulfilled from John 19.30. Christ Himself, along with the New Testament writers said that the Law was fulfilled – not ended or destroyed or abolish, but completed and we are no longer under. It is not that Christ merely kept it, but fulfilled it, and thus completed everything that was required for the ceremonial Law. Instead of assuming my words, read or ask.
Rabbi, there was a temple today, would we then be required to sacrifice?
Are we required to stone homosexuals, blasphemers, unruly children, and adulterous spouses? Should we wipe out idolatrous cities and nations? Rabbi, you put yourself in a box and dismiss the work of Jesus Christ. Christ was not merely keeping Seder, but was instituting the breaking of the body of Christ, and of a remembrance of the only sacrifice that is now needed. And you would dismiss this?
Rabbi, I suggest you go back and quote me where I said John 19.30 had anything to do with it.
Actually, you said that there was a difference in the Law, Rabbi. Not more than 15 minutes ago. You even said that there was a division in the Law.
I never said fulfill meant cancel. I said complete. Two very different words.
Hebrew 10.8 says that the sacrifices were not wanted by God and did not please Him, while 10.12 says that Christ is out sacrifice for sin, once and forever. So, if we no longer need to sacrifice for sin, and the other sacrifices had no pleasure for God, then you would have do vain things, empty, and dismissive of the work of Jesus Christ. Further, you contradict yourself. If the in sacrifice was only for a certain time, and we are no longer required to do it today….well, Rabbi, do you see the contradiction?
The Seder is a tradition developed by men, Rabbi. Christ anointed that Tradition and turned it into Doctrine.
Wb, as always, well said. How can anyone argue at this systematic explanation?
Wb, the words are the same, but the meanings are different. A previous Rabbi mentioned that he received his lexicon from others in the Messianic movement. (I assume you mean that we, you and I, and they, the Messianic Rabbi’s, are not understanding each other.) This is the problem with letting theology guide one’s understanding of the Scriptures instead of letting the Scriptures guide our theology.
Wb, two things, one right, one wrong. Let me offer some correction, first:
No, Wb, you do not. You have a zeal for God, and you have a foundation. It is not argumentative for the sake of argument; you are doing this because of your love of Grace, and I would assume your heart for Truth.
Second, you are right
You are not wrong on this issue.
Thanks for both of those. And yes, I love the Truth.
Rabbi,
Thanks for the link. You can guess my position, I think, but I’ll respond tomorrow. Hope all is well with you.
Try teaching people to obey the commandments. Look how fast people get mad at you when you do that. Even preachers get mad when they are told that they are supposed to keep the commandments.
Good for Joel to tell people they should obey God and eat what He calls food fit for His people to eat. Oh, the laws for clean and unclean are found in Leviticus 11.
Lamb, do we have to follow all 613 commandments? And, btw, the laws of what we can eat is in Acts 10
Mark 7:18-20 (New International Version)