• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

1 corinthians 9:19-23

In the process of posting the promised link(s) to the Sabbath day teachings I did on the last part of Leviticus (and 'related Scripture') I came across an OLD thread (dated to 2008) that caught my eye, and realized that (with all due respect to Samuel) I think this one had a lot more to offer on "obedience" and "is 'The LAW' really 'done away with' " than where this thread went.

Much will of course sound familiar, but I think it's, at minimum, more succinct. Not to mention 'civil'.

PS> The article Nathan mentioned is locked to subscribers only now, but I was more interested in what followed anyway...
 
I made some commitments about detailed responses to @Asforme&myhouse and @rockfox that I have to put on hold. I’m just publicly acknowledging that Ian temporarily tapping out. I have a project that I hope to be able to start sharing in that next six months and I’m getting too easily distracted:
 
You would have us believe that four disciples wrote their perspectives on the history of the beginning of the New Covenant and didn’t bother with explaining the major changes that were the result?
Act’s explains what occurred in the ministry after the resurrection and the only thing that can possibly be construed as a change was Peter being told to eat unclean animals. The problem with that is that he refused, more than once. And then later stated that it was about showing that the Gentiles were not unclean.

So it’s pretty weird that such a major theological change isn’t mentioned.
I am standing on this statement.
I feel that it shows the huge hole in the “Paul is the only one who defines the new covenant” theory. If no other apostle bothered to explain the huge shift, then Paul is being misunderstood. Which Peter states flat out is happening.
Since this hasn’t been adequately addressed, I am just going to tap out here.
 
Just for clarification, Jesus did not violate the law of Moses. He completely spurned the Tradition of the Elders, but that was a separate body of work that the pharisees held to be on the same level as Scripture. Jesus upholds a sola scriptura position. If He broke the law he wouldn’t have been the perfect sacrifice.
I totally agree with you on this.
The Sinai covenant was a temporary covenant, as Hebrews and Galatians tell us. If by renewed you are referring to the covenant God made with Abraham then yes, sort of, in a way, maybe. I think to state it more clearly, it is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham to his seed (Christ).
If we are looking at covenants in that light here is a thought. The covenant with Abraham is built off the promise (covenant) made to Adam and Eve of the seed/Messiah to come. Each covenant renews the previous while adding more. Some are one sided, Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham. While the Mosaic Covenant involves two parties with commitments required on both sides.
The law of Moses contains aspects of God’s perfect righteous nature. The 10 commandments are among those, and they are all carried over because of that. Shabbat in Israel was a type and foreshadow of the spiritual rest that believers in Messiah would have in Him. Now one esteems one day above the others and another man esteems them all the same, both do so unto the Lord because we are not under the law of Moses. For believers in Yeshua, He is our Sabbath rest. Hebrews compares Moses and Christ in this way in Hebrews 3:5-6

[5] “And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; [6] But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.“

It shows and differentiates between the two covenants and shows that we are of the house of Christ if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Hebrews makes all kinds of comparisons in order to show us which covenant we are a part of.

To your comment about Romans, I don’t have time to address that right at the moment, but I will as soon as I get the chance. Shalom
Since observe the Sabbath is one of the Commandments, and you believe Yeshua is our Sabbath rest, how do you believe that command needs to currently be practiced?

I believe that you are correct, that Yeshua is to be are Sabbath rest, but that will not be fulfilled until the end of the world when Yeshua comes the second time. Until then i believe the commandment of the Sabbath is to be kept, (argument of how/when aside) a day is to be set aside for Yahweh and rest until then.

Shalom
 
I was not planning to comment further on this post, but a few scriptures came to mind.

First of all @Children of God I hope what you have read from all the posts has helped you with regards to your original post.

Moving on, I have read and heard both here on BF and elsewhere that no one kept the commandments or law "perfectly"

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. — Luke 1:5-6 KJV

That scuppers that narrative...

Anyway...

As I thought about the disappointing behaviour and responses exhibited in this thread, the phrase "...he that is holy, let him be holy still..." came to mind.

I went to the verse, which reads

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. — Revelation 22:11 KJV

So, reading this text, in context, brings context I believe to this whole thread..

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. — Revelation 22:10-15 KJV

Shalom Love and Blessings
 
Moving on, I have read and heard both here on BF and elsewhere that no one kept the commandments or law "perfectly"

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. — Luke 1:5-6 KJV

That scuppers that narrative...
Correct. But so does Scripture long before that, in the last half of Deuteronomy chapter 30. I call it one of the Biggest Lies of the Whore Church: "NOBODY but JESUS could POSSIBLY keep The LAW!!!!!"

He says categorically otherwise. (Paul even quotes it, too!)

To summarize Deut. 30:11 on, "it Ain't Too Hard for you! So DO it!"
(Those who are honest Bereans where will read it for themselves, and judge - those who don't care, won't anyway.)
 
That’s an interesting perspective. Is it from the text? I don’t see it in the text.
No, it is not stated in the text. The perspective is based off historical basis and what the early church had to deal with when it came to Jewish and gentile believers. Even though Paul had never been to visit Rome at the point of writing the letter to them he was basing this off of what he was observing as an issue in the churches he was actively among.

If that is what is going on, why does he extend it to days of the week? In Romans 14:5-6 he says, “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks”. Under the law of Moses not every day is esteemed the same. If not sabbath keeping, to what is he referring? What other days would we observe to the Lord, besides Shabbat or feast days?
Romans 14:1 Paul refers to the subject being disputable and opinion, which the Sabbath at that time was not. The Greek word Paul uses for day, hemera, refers to any common day. It refers to the other six days of the week. Thus, he is addressing common days, not holy days like the Sabbath. The Greek word for holy, hagios, is not even found in this chapter (Romans 14). Thus, he is addressing common days, not holy days like the Sabbath. If he were referring to the Sabbath, Paul would have used a specific Greek word for Sabbath, such as sabbaton (or similar words). Paul was not addressing which days God considers to be holy, but what days men esteem higher than others. God is the one who consecrated the Sabbath, not man. Lastly, one must also consider his audience. Paul wrote these words to the Romans. He is applying these verses specifically to days that the Romans considered to be important. The Romans were very superstitious. They considered some days of the week to be unlucky, such as Saturday, etc. What does this mean for Romans 14:5-6? If we are going to consider a common day as important to perform a specific activity, then we should do so unto the Lord and not to a pagan deity or superstition. He is addressing this specific Roman cultural activity for common days and activities, not the Sabbath or any day declared holy by God.

I will be replying to the rest of your post/questions in another post. Shalom.
 
Correct. But so does Scripture long before that, in the last half of Deuteronomy chapter 30. I call it one of the Biggest Lies of the Whore Church: "NOBODY but JESUS could POSSIBLY keep The LAW!!!!!"

He says categorically otherwise. (Paul even quotes it, too!)

To summarize Deut. 30:11 on, "it Ain't Too Hard for you! So DO it!"
(Those who are honest Bereans where will read it for themselves, and judge - those who don't care, won't anyway.)


@Mark C:


LOL...

When reading on in the same chapter there is a very significant verse

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; [Deu 30:15-17 KJV]

Understanding the lies of

the Whore Church

it is plain to see that it has diverted worship and servitude from YAH to other gods as if what YAH determined as LIFE, GOOD, DEATH, EVIL has changed !

Thats it ! Lol

Shalom Love and Blessings
 
The law of Moses also touches on foods sacrificed to idols. In Exodus 34:15-16 | NKJV, it says,15 “lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice, 16 and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.”
And lest you say, oh that was for when they were in the land, I would ask, were they to play the harlot with other gods when they were not in the land? Some first century Hebrew christians were observing Torah by not eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul says it’s a none issue because “All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.” Romans 14:20 | NKJV. It is offending the weak brother by what you eat that is wrong not the food itself because all things indeed are pure.
When it comes to the Exodus 34 verses in it has to do with making covenants with nations which Yahweh has ordered destroyed. One whose religious beliefs are abominable to Him and in which participating of would be breaking the commandments he had given them. In one sense it is very specific, but it is also general.
It is not so much about the eating of food sacrificed to idols, but the intention behind it. As the Romans verse touches on. By making a covenant with the pagan nation they were agreeing to worship their gods in a manner that Yahweh reserved for Himself. There was not anything wrong with the early Christians eating food sacrificed to idols as long as they were not PARTICIPATING intentionally in offering and worship. Which would be breaking the First 2 of his 10 commandments.
Bear in mind that the dietary laws for Israel were never given to gentiles, not then and not now. “You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the Lord your God.” Deuteronomy 14:21 | NKJV
These laws were to separate His chosen Ethnic Israelites from the other peoples of the earth. Hence the question in Hebrew believers minds when the Gospel came to the gentiles. Do they need to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses? The answer was no.
The dietary laws were given to Israel as Yahweh's chosen and set apart people. Which we are grafted into, Romans 11: 11-31. Which separates us from the gentiles and sets us apart as the Israelites are.

The Ten Commandments are part of God’s unchanging nature, and as such are applicable to believers. The ancient ethnic Hebrews being instructed not to eat a shrimp and pork has to do with them being set apart from the nations around them, as was physical circumcision. These things were commanded to the Israelites but not gentiles.
I disagree on the perspective of what I believe comes from Acts with the 4 'laws' of which the gentiles needed to keep. Did that mean the weren't meant to keep the 10 commandments as well?, No. Since the circumcision discussion is its own tangent I will only make a brief comment here. The circumcision and perspective the early church was fighting was if gentiles had to become Ethnically Jewish to be saved, which the answer was no. Did they need to observe all of the laws of Moses to be accepted into the church community, no. They were given a place/minimum requirement, in addition to belief in Yeshua as the Messiah, to start with. The understanding was that keeping the rest of the commandments, circumcision, etc would follow as the gentile convert grew in understanding.

I could go deeper into any of this but I don't feel like it would keep the discussion on topic.

Thank you for your thoughts and reply.

Shalom
 
So does this prove conclusively that some laws are temporary and either pass away or become fulfilled and no longer apply?
@NickF Not been ignoring your question, just been taking time to respond to it properly and allow others to do so.

All of what follows is my understanding of this topic. I'm still expanding my understanding and biblical knowledge and references. If I convey an idea or understanding I just ask that you extend some grace as I may do so very imperfectly. The grace extends to not completely rejecting an idea or concept because of my inability to convey it well.

To respond to your first question in short, Yes, it is true that some laws/commands/instructions in the OT were or are for a particular time, place, or circumstance. Does that mean that ALL no longer apply? No.
For example, everyone is pretty much in agreement that the 10 commandments have been carried forward into what is called the new covenant. How does one observe these and the 2 commands of love Yahweh and love your neighbor? Those who look to Torah are doing so because the 613 Mitzvot give practical applications on how to live them out. This does not equal a bondage to them, but a freedom to understand how to live them in daily life.

  1. If the law was given to Israel, and for Israel.
  2. Not to and for the gentiles.
The Israelites were Yahwehs chosen and set apart people. Which we are grafted into, Romans 11: 11-31. Which separates us from the gentiles and sets us apart as the Israelites are.
  1. And that law will not pass away till all be fulfilled.
  2. And then Christ comes and fulfills the law fully.
  3. God clearly establishes a new covenant, and says so in his own words.
I am referencing back to an earlier post of mine on covenants and my belief in a renewed covenant. It has all of my biblical references within it. Laws of the Mosaic covenant remain. Some we observe just as Yesuah did, some we are not able to due to being in exile (mainly any of the levitical laws).
I've seen a lot of discussion of Old vs. New covenants, but feel like RENEWED covenant is not really referenced at all.

The terms New Testament or New Covenant are used in the Testimony of Yeshua portion of the English Bible in exactly nine places (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24), (With most of the Hebrews verses being italicized and added for translation rather than being in the original texts.)

In the Testimony of Yeshua, there are two Greek words for new: neos and kainos, and each one has a different connotation. Neos more often means “brand new or numerically new,” while kainos means “renewed, refreshed or repaired or qualitatively new.” When you see the term New Covenant or New Testament used, in eight of nine time the authors use kainos. Only in Hebrews 12:24 is neos used in reference to the new covenant.
The Testimony of Yeshua’s preference over using the Greek word for renewed over the word (brand) new is exactly consistent with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrew’s usage of the word in Hebrews 8:8, The author is here quoting directly from Jeremiah 31:31.

Based on this linguistic evidence it seems that the terms new testament or new covenant should be more accurately translated as renewed covenant instead of new (as in brand new) covenant. This was the preference of the apostolic writers, although, it can be clearly demonstrated from Hebrews 12:24 that the term new covenants is acceptable as well.

Thus the case would be made that the New Covenant renews the Old Covenant.
After all, the New Covenant is a separate and New Covenant. At the same time, it is a reworking or refreshing of the Old Covenant, but with two major additions: the blood of Yeshua to wash away the sins of his people once and for all, and the Set-Apart Spirit of Elohim who will write his laws on their hearts, so that they will not only want to obey them, but will have the internal spiritual power to do so.
In reality, Yeshua the Messiah is not really going to make a brand new covenant with his people when he returns to marry his spiritual wife, which is the spiritual body of believers of whom he is the head. Instead, he will repair or renew the former covenants (plural, see Eph 2:12) that ancient Israel broke and that many people are still breaking today by not keeping Yeshua’s Torah-commandments as they should (remember John 14:15?). After all, there was nothing wrong with the covenants themselves. The problem was with the people—they failed to be faithful to the terms of that covenant to which they agreed as Heb 8:8 states. Under the Renewed Covenant, the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants will be combined to make this new covenant or what the Bible also refers to as the Everlasting Covenant (Jer 32:40; Ezek 37:26) as well as the Covenant of Peace (Ezek 37:26).

The fault was with Israel (it wasn’t with YHVH or his Torah-laws—the terms of the covenant), since they failed to keep the terms of the covenant to which they agreed at Mount Sinai. What did Elohim require of them? Simply this: faith in him and obedience to his laws. YHVH Elohim married Israel the first time at Mount Sinai, when they said, “I do” to Elohim three times (Exod 19:8; 24:3, 7). However, they quickly broke their vows when they failed to remain faithful to Elohim and instead worshiped the golden calf (Exod 32 cp. Ezek 16:1–31).The renewed covenant that Jeremiah prophesied that Elohim would make with his people (Jer 31:31, 33) will still have the Torah-law as the terms of the agreement, but this time, YHVH will pour out his Set-Apart Spirit onto his people to soften their hard hearts and write his laws on their hearts. This time, they will want to obey his laws. With Yeshua, the Messiah, the Living Torah-word of Elohim, living in their hearts through the power of Elohim’s Spirit, this time they will be an obedient wife to YHVH instead of a rebellious one. This bride will be made up of both Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Yeshua the Messiah, which Scriptures refers to as “the one new man” (Eph 2:15) or as “the Israel of Elohim” (Gal 6:16).

In Ephesians 2:11–19, Paul talks about the Gentiles coming into a spiritual and covenantal relationship with the Elohim of Israel, becoming part of the nation of Israel, and being brought into a relationship with Elohim through the covenants (plural) of Israel. What were these covenants (plural)? This is the Torah Covenant, which can be subdivided into the Abrahamic and Mosaic (Sinaitic) Covenants, along with the New or Renewed Covenant, which the Tanakh refers to as the Everlasting Covenant (Jer 32:40; Ezek 37:26). The latter was prophesied about by Jeremiah, and came into reality during the time of Yeshua and the apostles. It is the New Covenant that is the spiritually renewed or refreshed Torah Covenant of old that becomes a reality in the lives of born-again, spiritually regenerated believers through a spiritual relationship with Yeshua, the Messiah of Israel. Paul makes this abundantly clear as he relates the Abrahamic Covenant subsection of the Torah Covenant to the salvation of the believer in his epistle to the Romans chapter four. Paul then references the Mosaic Covenant aspect of the Torah Covenant to the life of the believer when he clearly indicates that YHVH’s Torah-law is to be the standard of righteousness for the saints (see Rom 3:31; 7:12, 14, 22; 13:8–10; Act 24:14; 25:8 compare with John 14:15 and Matt 5:19).

So the New, Renewed Covenant is a both a new and separate covenant, yet at the same time, it is a renewed or refreshed form of the Torah Covenant made up of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. This time the covenant is sealed not with the blood of a sacrificed animal as was the case with the Mosaic Covenant (Exod 24:5–6), but with the blood of Yeshua who once and for all paid for man’s sins (Matt 26:27–28; Heb 9:26, 28; 10:10, 12).

Moreover, those who come to faith in Yeshua are promised the gift of the Set-Apart Spirit to live inside of them, to write YHVH’s laws on their hearts, and to empower them to be a faithful bride and eventual wife of Yeshua as they remain faithful and obedient to him and love him by keeping his Torah-commandments (John 14:12).

There can be arguments made whether this New Renewed covenant is fully in affect now, or if it will not fully be so until Yeshua returns. This new renewed covenant being like the Abrahamic covenant which had a delay in being promised and fulfilled completely. Furthermore, the original Mosaic Covenant was bilateral (had the approval of both parties) but the renewed covenant is mono-lateral (similar to Abrahamic). In other words, a Yahweh only Covenant, who freely offers the renewed Covenant to all that are willing to accept it and keep it, everyone under the same terms.
With the renewed covenant, not all is yet fulfilled.
  1. AND gentiles are specifically and explicitly instructed to NOT obey at least some of the Torah lest they be damned...
  2. And those gentiles were instructed to NOT listen to those who instruct them to give up their liberty and attempt to put themselves in bondage to the law....
Since these reference to Paul I'll just insert a note here on why I would disagree. Peter himself in 2 Peter 3:14-16 claims that Paul is hard to understand and needs to be taken in context of the scriptures (this would be OT as the NT was not written or gathered yet) and that Paul doesn't say anything contrary to them. So if a plain reading seems to negate OT scripture or what Yeshua says then the plain reading needs to be questioned. Paul should be read with historical context as well as scripture reference.
He then explains what many non-Torah keepers here have been attempting to convey. That it seems there are some here who are attempting to keep laws that are not needful and avoiding the weightier matters. They are trying to keep the letter and not the spirit of the law. They are placing themselves under bondage to a law that has been fulfilled and buried with Christ. That we should not be seeking to place ourselves in bondage to a law that will make the work of Christ of no effect. That's terrifying stuff brothers.
I don't believe that anyone here who has made the choice to observe Torah are trying to negate or deny Yeshuas sacrifice and death for us. Or the fact that it is through faith in Yeshua as our Messiah and his grace that we are saved. Works, including any observance of Torah, do not save or condemn any of us.

I hope this responds to some of your questions. I don't judge or condemn anyone for keeping/not keeping Torah. Everyone is on their own spiritual journey and we are all brethren in our belief in Yeshua as our messiah.

Shalom
 
Last edited:
I write this not in rebuttal, but to add to the conversation so that others who remain undecided might have clear sight into this matter.

Romans 11​

1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, [a]a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” 4 But what [b]is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s [c]gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer [d]on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but [e]those who were chosen obtained it,
Israel is seeking to be grafted in. And it has not obtained that end. Those who were chosen (the gentiles) obtained being grafted onto Christ (the root)
and the rest were hardened; 8 just as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes to see not and ears to hear not,
Down to this very day.”
9 And David says,

“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
And a stumbling block and a retribution to them.
10 “Let their eyes be darkened to see not,
And bend their backs forever.”


11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their [f]fulfillment be! 13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my [g]fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
Salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous of that salvation and to desire to be grafted in.

Who is holy? Is Israel? No. The Lord is Holy, He is the root.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the [h]rich root of the olive tree,
What branches were broken off? Israel. Which is the wild olive grafted in onto the root? Gentiles.
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
You cannot graft onto a branch that is broken off the root. You graft onto the root to obtain the nature of the rootstock. The root is holy and righteous, we want to be grafted in so as to obtain the holiness and righteousness of the root. This is how grafting works. If you want the traits of the rootstock to be carried on to the new branch, then that new branch must be grafted onto the rootstock. If you graft onto a branch, you obtain the nature of the branch, not the rootstock.

Gentiles should not be arrogant of their grafted in position when they see the other branches broken on the ground.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
What branches were broken off for unbelief? The tribes of Israel. Gentiles are not to be conceited while sitting up on the tree grafted in while seeing Israel broken off for unbelief. They are warned to have fear so as to not fall prey to unbelief and be likewise broken off.
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
Here we see in plain wording that those branches of Israel are NOT grafted in currently. Otherwise God would have no need to graft them in again if they were already grafted in.
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
The natural branches are Israel according to the context. The wild branch is the Gentiles. Both should desire to be grafted onto Christ. The Gentiles who are currently grafted on, should be careful to not be prideful and maintain their belief. Israel should get jealous and seek to be grafted onto Him who is mighty to save.
25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “This is [i]My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
28 [j]From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but [k]from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
God will show mercy to Israel for their disobedience and unbelief. Gentiles have been shown mercy so that Israel may be shown mercy.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches [l]both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him [m]that it might be paid back to him again? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory [n]forever. Amen.

Who is the root? It's not Israel, the root is Christ. That is evidenced by Romans 11 because salvation came to the gentiles to provoke jealousy of Israel. Israel could not be jealous of Gentiles being in the same place as they are. That would be nonsensical. Israel is a branch that was broken off but not cast away. Gentiles are clearly grafted onto Christ who is the root. They cannot be grafted onto branches that have been cut/broken off. Therefore Gentiles have been grafted onto Christ to cause jealousy in Israel who should want to be grafted onto Christ where currently Gentiles are grafted.

This is extremely clear through this whole chapter.
Nobody has been able to provide any proof in scripture that Gentiles are required to keep the 613 Mitzvot. To the contrary we are told explicitly that there is a different standard with this new/renewed covenant which Christ instituted by his blood. A Better promise than the one before.

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (sin and death).

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Let those who follow The Redeemer rejoice in their grafted in status as a unique branch that will be a part of the whole tree that will have all of Israel grafted back in one day in the future. Selah
 
Since observe the Sabbath is one of the Commandments, and you believe Yeshua is our Sabbath rest, how do you believe that command needs to currently be practiced?

I believe that you are correct, that Yeshua is to be are Sabbath rest, but that will not be fulfilled until the end of the world when Yeshua comes the second time. Until then i believe the commandment of the Sabbath is to be kept, (argument of how/when aside) a day is to be set aside for Yahweh and rest until then.

15 “And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.The Mediator’s Death Necessary 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.” Hebrews 9:15-18 | NKJV

So we know that Jesus inaugurated the new covenant.

26 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” Hebrews 10:26-29 | NKJV

If we deny Christ’s new covenant there remains no more sacrifice for sin.

1 “Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.”6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, 7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.”8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.The Word Discovers Our Condition 11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.” Hebrews 4:1-11 | NKJV

Hebrews makes it present tense “today”. Christ is our Sabbath rest in the new covenant, which we are in. We enter His rest by FAITH. See below and note what is called “weak in faith”


Romans 14:1 Paul refers to the subject being disputable and opinion, which the Sabbath at that time was not. The Greek word Paul uses for day, hemera, refers to any common day. It refers to the other six days of the week. Thus, he is addressing common days, not holy days like the Sabbath. The Greek word for holy, hagios, is not even found in this chapter (Romans 14). Thus, he is addressing common days, not holy days like the Sabbath. If he were referring to the Sabbath, Paul would have used a specific Greek word for Sabbath, such as sabbaton (or similar words). Paul was not addressing which days God considers to be holy, but what days men esteem higher than others. God is the one who consecrated the Sabbath, not man. Lastly, one must also consider his audience. Paul wrote these words to the Romans. He is applying these verses specifically to days that the Romans considered to be important. The Romans were very superstitious. They considered some days of the week to be unlucky, such as Saturday, etc. What does this mean for Romans 14:5-6? If we are going to consider a common day as important to perform a specific activity, then we should do so unto the Lord and not to a pagan deity or superstition. He is addressing this specific Roman cultural activity for common days and activities, not the Sabbath or any day declared holy by God.

First, why didn’t the Jerusalem council instruct the new gentile believers to keep Shabbat? Shabbat is the sign of the Sinai covenant. If they were giving a list for a starter pack, the ones they gave are very odd. If they were telling them to avoid those things out of respect for Jews who would believe in Christ, those four things make perfect sense. You are forcing your own meaning onto the text. Galatians already tells us clearly if we uncircumcised when called, do not become circumcised, if circumcised when we are called do try to become uncircumcised. It’s plain as day, one really has to work hard to make it say something different.

When it comes to the Exodus 34 verses in it has to do with making covenants with nations which Yahweh has ordered destroyed. One whose religious beliefs are abominable to Him and in which participating of would be breaking the commandments he had given them. In one sense it is very specific, but it is also general.
It is not so much about the eating of food sacrificed to idols, but the intention behind it. As the Romans verse touches on. By making a covenant with the pagan nation they were agreeing to worship their gods in a manner that Yahweh reserved for Himself. There was not anything wrong with the early Christians eating food sacrificed to idols as long as they were not PARTICIPATING intentionally in offering and worship. Which would be breaking the First 2 of his 10 commandments.

Why is the man who does not eat called “weak in faith”? It would seem that one who is trying to be very careful to honor the Father by only eating vegetables would be commended, not called weak in faith, if indeed we are supposed to keep the dietary laws. Same goes for days of the week.

The dietary laws were given to Israel as Yahweh's chosen and set apart people. Which we are grafted into, Romans 11: 11-31. Which separates us from the gentiles and sets us apart as the Israelites are.

We are children of Abraham by faith, not in the flesh. God set apart the ethnic Israelites for a specific purpose. We know that there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, but we are all one in Christ. There is always a distinction between Jew and the gentile even after salvation in the New Testament. Now let me ask you, are gender roles done away with? No, men and women have different roles even in the assembly. A woman trying to take the role of a man is perverse, likewise a man trying to take the role of a woman. Have you ever considered that God chose to make you a gentile? Since we are instructed to remain as called, why would you try to be a Jew? “Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,” Romans 3:29 | NKJV. I would say it is more pleasing to God to obey that which He has commanded you, then to try and obey what He has commanded someone else.

I disagree on the perspective of what I believe comes from Acts with the 4 'laws' of which the gentiles needed to keep. Did that mean the weren't meant to keep the 10 commandments as well?, No. Since the circumcision discussion is its own tangent I will only make a brief comment here. The circumcision and perspective the early church was fighting was if gentiles had to become Ethnically Jewish to be saved, which the answer was no. Did they need to observe all of the laws of Moses to be accepted into the church community, no. They were given a place/minimum requirement, in addition to belief in Yeshua as the Messiah, to start with. The understanding was that keeping the rest of the commandments, circumcision, etc would follow as the gentile convert grew in understanding.

Simply not true, see above.
 
Correct. But so does Scripture long before that, in the last half of Deuteronomy chapter 30. I call it one of the Biggest Lies of the Whore Church: "NOBODY but JESUS could POSSIBLY keep The LAW!!!!!"

He says categorically otherwise. (Paul even quotes it, too!)

To summarize Deut. 30:11 on, "it Ain't Too Hard for you! So DO it!"
(Those who are honest Bereans where will read it for themselves, and judge - those who don't care, won't anyway.)

That is not really the concept of what is being conveyed in Deuteronomy 30:11, He’s saying that it is not too difficult to understand what He has said.

Jesus said no one but God is good.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
 
Last edited:
If we are looking at covenants in that light here is a thought. The covenant with Abraham is built off the promise (covenant) made to Adam and Eve of the seed/Messiah to come. Each covenant renews the previous while adding more. Some are one sided, Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham. While the Mosaic Covenant involves two parties with commitments required on both sides.

The Mosaic covenant is the outlier among those covenants. And you are right that the Mosaic covenant requires work on the part of both parties. And if we are under it, then we are REQUIRED to do EVERYTHING in it. How is that not salvation by works, at least in part? Romans 4:4-5 says,
[4] “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. [5] But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

Also we are told in Galatians 3:12 “And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.”

But our salvation is by grace through faith, right? So tell me, if to him that works “is the reward not reckoned of grace” and “the law is not of faith”, how then are YOU saved by grace through faith, under the law?


Scripture tells us the Mosaic covenant was given to a specific people, the Israelites and it was given for a specific time frame. Galatians 3:18-19
[18] “For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. [19] Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.”

The law of Moses was not never given to gentiles. We are of the seed of Abraham by faith. Our Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ are not under the law either, but they are not commanded to not keep what they want to keep, it is their culture and heritage and it is beautiful as long they don’t keep it for salvation.
 
15 “And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.The Mediator’s Death Necessary 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.” Hebrews 9:15-18 | NKJV

So we know that Jesus inaugurated the new covenant.

26 “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” Hebrews 10:26-29 | NKJV

If we deny Christ’s new covenant there remains no more sacrifice for sin.

1 “Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ”although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.”6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, 7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.”8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.The Word Discovers Our Condition 11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.” Hebrews 4:1-11 | NKJV

Hebrews makes it present tense “today”. Christ is our Sabbath rest in the new covenant, which we are in. We enter His rest by FAITH. See below and note what is called “weak in faith”




First, why didn’t the Jerusalem council instruct the new gentile believers to keep Shabbat? Shabbat is the sign of the Sinai covenant. If they were giving a list for a starter pack, the ones they gave are very odd. If they were telling them to avoid those things out of respect for Jews who would believe in Christ, those four things make perfect sense. You are forcing your own meaning onto the text. Galatians already tells us clearly if we uncircumcised when called, do not become circumcised, if circumcised when we are called do try to become uncircumcised. It’s plain as day, one really has to work hard to make it say something different.



Why is the man who does not eat called “weak in faith”? It would seem that one who is trying to be very careful to honor the Father by only eating vegetables would be commended, not called weak in faith, if indeed we are supposed to keep the dietary laws. Same goes for days of the week.



We are children of Abraham by faith, not in the flesh. God set apart the ethnic Israelites for a specific purpose. We know that there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, but we are all one in Christ. There is always a distinction between Jew and the gentile even after salvation in the New Testament. Now let me ask you, are gender roles done away with? No, men and women have different roles even in the assembly. A woman trying to take the role of a man is perverse, likewise a man trying to take the role of a woman. Have you ever considered that God chose to make you a gentile? Since we are instructed to remain as called, why would you try to be a Jew? “Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,” Romans 3:29 | NKJV. I would say it is more pleasing to God to obey that which He has commanded you, then to try and obey what He has commanded someone else.



Simply not true, see above.
You have got to read the entire book. Hebrews is about the priesthood and sacrifices, not the whole law. And why didn’t the Council of Jerusalem forbid incest and bestiality (it actually did if you understand porneia)? Because it was never supposed to be a comprehensive list of all moral precepts.
 
You have got to read the entire book.

I have, many times over.

Hebrews is about the priesthood and sacrifices, not the whole law.

That is not true. But for the sake of argument let’s say it was. Were does it say that specifically?

And why didn’t the Council of Jerusalem forbid incest and bestiality (it actually did if you understand porneia)? Because it was never supposed to be a comprehensive list of all moral precepts.

Nor was it a giving of the mosaic law to gentiles. Those things were specifically stated so that gentile believers wouldn’t be offensive to the Jews around them, and become a stumbling block to them. We are told later that eating meat sacrificed to idols is nothing. We can eat it as long as we’re not eating it in front of someone who is weak in faith and by doing so cause him to stumble.

Why wasn’t keeping of the sabbath (the sign of the covenant) on that list?
 
We can eat it as long as we’re not eating it in front of someone who is weak in faith and by doing so cause him to stumble.
Absolutely false. We’re told it’s powerless and don’t worry about finding out if a meat was sacrificed to an idol, but Paul explicitly says not to eat it if you know that it was. As always he’s killing multiple birds with multiple stones fired all at once.
 
Back
Top