Can you show it in a Hebrew rendering?
-
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.
Thinking about a passage in Romans 7
- Thread starter Bartato
- Start date
There are many Psalms that David wrote. The longest one is Psalm 119 - 176 verses - mostly exalting the Creator's Torah.
He says things like - "Oh, how I love your Law. I meditate on it all day long." "More precious than thousands of pieces of silver and gold." He must had been doing something right:
1 Kings 15:5
For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
Paul also in Romans 7:22 NLT - "I love God’s law with all my heart."
This is something I feel like Christianity has lost over the generations, unfortunately. Here's another passage in Acts:
Acts 21:20 Berean Standard Bible
When they heard this, they glorified God. Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.
Last edited:
Please don't mistake what I am saying. Died to the law, and been united to Another does not mean that the Law is bad. The Law is altogether good, beautiful, and glorious. Paul tells us that in Romans.
I delight in the Law of God. Psalm 119 now belongs to me because I belong to Christ and all things (including the Torah) are His.
The Christian apostle Paul of Romans 7:22 loved the Law of God far more than he did when he was Saul the Pharisee, student of Gamaliel.
Somehow dying to the Law (and dying to everything else, including our own sinful lives) and being now joined to Another, the risen Christ Himself, actually causes us to rightly love His Law, and actually do what God wills us to do.
Also, 1 Kings 15:5 is one of our favorite "polygamy proof texts". We don't need it to prove the truthfulness of Psalm 119 (which isn't attributed to David).
. Psalm 119 is just true.
Then the 'listener' should learn the meaning of the words!
They are MORE 'misled' by not understanding the difference between instruction and 'law'. They are misled when they don't understand the difference between "mRNA" and 'vaccine,' or what the word "infringed" means. Most don't even know what "polygyny" means, and why it is NOT the same as "polygamy."
The world is literally going to Hell on earth because they don't even know the difference between "good and evil," or "bitter and sweet."
The Adversary misuses words to deceive? What else is new? Are you going to sit still for it, or try to correct the problem?
The word "torah" means instruction.
And, by now I'd hope it's obvious - most of the miscommunication, obfuscation, and confusion comes from not knowing what the words mean. And it should be pretty obvious in this thread by now.
PS> The word "torah" appears about 25 times in Psalm 119 alone. But it's NOT "law", because when David means "commandments," or "statutes," or "judgments," that are 'legal' terms as an English-speaker might understand, he uses THOSE words! (mishpat, chuq, mitzvot)
Last edited:
Part of the instructions - which Peter repeats in the NT - “Be Holy, for I am Holy.” The Creator has said he wants his people to be set apart from the rest of the peoples. No different than a husband not wanting his wife to be like so many other wives out there. Part of his instructions includes distinguishing unclean animals and clean animals for food. If the unclean is now clean - then my question is why are people still dying from eating swine flesh (parasitic worms), and getting other side effects?Please don't mistake what I am saying. Died to the law, and been united to Another does not mean that the Law is bad. The Law is altogether good, beautiful, and glorious. Paul tells us that in Romans.
I delight in the Law of God. Psalm 119 now belongs to me because I belong to Christ and all things (including the Torah) are His.
The Christian apostle Paul of Romans 7:22 loved the Law of God far more than he did when he was Saul the Pharisee, student of Gamaliel.
Somehow dying to the Law (and dying to everything else, including our own sinful lives) and being now joined to Another, the risen Christ Himself, actually causes us to rightly love His Law, and actually do what God wills us to do.
Also, 1 Kings 15:5 is one of our favorite "polygamy proof texts". We don't need it to prove the truthfulness of Psalm 119 (which isn't attributed to David).
Modern science even agrees there’s great Wisdom and knowledge found in the food laws in the Scriptures. Because the animals that are unclean (not food) help reduce the possibility of infections.
Attachments
Last edited:
Here's one for those who still just 'don't get it'...
Proverbs 1:8 -- (the KJV is pitiful...)
"My son, hear theinstruction [no, correction] of thy father, and forsake not the law [no, THIS time it's 'torah'!] of thy mother:"
(LSB gets it right, even NLT does as well.)
Proverbs 1:8 -- (the KJV is pitiful...)
"My son, hear the
(LSB gets it right, even NLT does as well.)
The majority of the time even you seem to use the word Torah to refer to the five books of Moses. For just one example:
And most other people who use the word Torah use it predominately with that meaning also. So if you use the word in that way over and over again, and then say Yeshua is "The Torah made flesh", what do you think people hear?
Anyway, this is back to the other fundamental issue also:
Note how I was specific: (And note the Capitalization, and EMPHASIS, too)
You will have noted by now that I am, so far as possible, EXTREMELY careful about "conflation" - where people can be confused by a word which combines meanings, where the thought being conveyed should NOT.
Examples abound: "Israel" -- it that a MAN, or a set of tribes FROM that same man, or a 'whore church' which [sometimes] claims the title, or a contemporary socialist secular nation? The only way to tell, in most cases, is context. But the word can confuse people.
"Baal" - does it just mean 'lord,' or that pagan diety?
"Elohim" - the plural form of the word 'God' - is also applied to pagan 'elohim', or 'gods,' or even 'mighty ones'. The only way to know in an English rendering is by context or Capitalization. And it's why I prefer not to use 'God' more often than not; most people don't even know it's NOT even a name, but a title.
Likewise, and this is why I despise the rendering of 'torah' (NO caps!) as "law" (sometimes, even WITH caps, fer cryin' out loud!) And 'nomos' just multiplies the error.
Can you believe: Some might even call the Circus Farce in New York "courts of law"? - good grief!
If you will check, you will see that, to the "best of my human ability" - I will ALWAYS try to use the 'specific article the' AND Capitalization, when I reference the "five Books of Moses," as the Torah.
Which reminds me of a specific issue in English: I will also try to Capitalize the Name of the Messiah, and any references to Him, such as (but not limited to....) 'Son of Man," King of Kings, Prince of Peace, and, yes, Torah Made Flesh. So, there's your exception: that Capitalization is in deference to His Name, or even a Yahushua-specific title. But, understand, when He teaches His Word, it is NOT LIMITED to a specific Book, or five of 'em. And He taught by quoting Himself, and by telling stories and parables, too.
His parables, of the Good Shepherd, or the two sons, or the Sower -- all of 'em -- are torah in the most fundamental sense. As was His very Life, in the flesh, for us.
And that's the answer to your second question, whether asked originally in sarcasm or sincerity. EVERY BIT OF IT, from "Bereshiet to Maps," is His Instruction. (Hmm. I capitalize Bible, too. But it's all instruction.)
PS> Here are a couple more 'titles' for the Torah Made Flesh that may, or may not, appear in your English Bibles:
The Rock, the Foundation, the Prophet Like Unto Moses. And here's one: the First Fruits of the Dead. They're ALL in there, I contend, and someone will argue about every one of 'em.
Last edited:
And a Post-postscript addendum:
It occurs to me that I've had MANY discussions with Orthodox and Conservative Jews about the Messiah, and His identity, and have gotten LESS argument about referring to the One I know as the "Prophet Like Unto Moshe" as the Torah Made Flesh than I did here on this thread. They were willing to hear (and accept, even - whether they agreed with the CONCLUSION or not) the evidence from what they knew as the "Hebrew Scripture," or TNKH.
And this is what hit me as funny: They may not "like" Isaiah 53, and have been 'conditioned' against certain implications. So I didn't have to emphasize that - there were plenty of others, as I note.
But they would NOT have accepted John chapter 1, or any of Romans. And would have closed the conversation, just as some do here when it comes to 'that Torah'.
So the way to 'bridge that gap,' in my experience, is to SHOW THEM exactly what the "Torah Made Flesh" means. It's there - on almost every page.
Funnier still: After all of that, and a lot of mileage, I had a 'heart-to-heart' discussion about the nature, and my understanding, of the Messiah Yahushua as I understood Him with my good rabbi friend, and quoted (among others) Matthew 5:17-19, to make a point I make here often.
"He said THAT?" was the incredulous reply. This was an American equivalent to a Sanhedrin-level Rabbi, dean of a Yeshiva for other rabbis, and the man had an advanced degree from one of the most prestigious CATHOLIC universities in the USA. And he had never, EVER, heard that!
We talked a lot more after that. But he never again failed to understand in detail why the "jesus" that he'd had rammed down his throat, and truly rejected, for cause, was not remotely the same as the Yahushua that his friend regarded as OUR Messiah.
It occurs to me that I've had MANY discussions with Orthodox and Conservative Jews about the Messiah, and His identity, and have gotten LESS argument about referring to the One I know as the "Prophet Like Unto Moshe" as the Torah Made Flesh than I did here on this thread. They were willing to hear (and accept, even - whether they agreed with the CONCLUSION or not) the evidence from what they knew as the "Hebrew Scripture," or TNKH.
And this is what hit me as funny: They may not "like" Isaiah 53, and have been 'conditioned' against certain implications. So I didn't have to emphasize that - there were plenty of others, as I note.
But they would NOT have accepted John chapter 1, or any of Romans. And would have closed the conversation, just as some do here when it comes to 'that Torah'.
So the way to 'bridge that gap,' in my experience, is to SHOW THEM exactly what the "Torah Made Flesh" means. It's there - on almost every page.
Funnier still: After all of that, and a lot of mileage, I had a 'heart-to-heart' discussion about the nature, and my understanding, of the Messiah Yahushua as I understood Him with my good rabbi friend, and quoted (among others) Matthew 5:17-19, to make a point I make here often.
"He said THAT?" was the incredulous reply. This was an American equivalent to a Sanhedrin-level Rabbi, dean of a Yeshiva for other rabbis, and the man had an advanced degree from one of the most prestigious CATHOLIC universities in the USA. And he had never, EVER, heard that!
We talked a lot more after that. But he never again failed to understand in detail why the "jesus" that he'd had rammed down his throat, and truly rejected, for cause, was not remotely the same as the Yahushua that his friend regarded as OUR Messiah.
I was thinking about this aspect of ypur comment.
Romans was written in Greek to "the church in Rome", basically Christians from a Greco-Roman background. Even John, being written in Greek (I realize you disagree on this point), was probably directed more towards Gentiles than Jews.
Compare that with what Christ Himself actually did during His earthly ministry. His ministry was directly aimed at taking the Good News of His Kingdom to the Jews. Later on, after some received Him, and others has rejected Him, the Gospel went out to the Gentiles.
In short, I'm not surprised that Jews might more find the Old Testament testimony of Jesus to be more persuasive than the New Testament.
If some Mormon or Muslim wants to persuade me of his faith, let him do it with the Bible. I don't accept the book of mormon or koran as authoritative. It's reasonable to see Jews function the same way.
What is your scriptural basis for the phrase "whore church"?
I understand that the prophets called Judah and Samaria adulteresses, and that the church sometimes acts similarly.
Is there somewhere comparable when the Bible calls the church a "whore church", or is that just something that you came up with?
I do get your point here @Mark C, find the right language for the right audience. And that most certainly may be a helpful phrase when discussing this with a Jewish audience. I can see how that could help to break through and open someone up to discussions of the Messiah.
While if I'm talking to a Muslim about Jesus, I'll start with references to Him in the Quran. Same reason. Meet them where they are at.
Actually, NO. He said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (meaning the northern kingdom, already in exile. (The same story is told both in Matthew 15, see v. 24, and abbreviated in Mark 7. And it is of note that the woman was a Canaanite.)
Later, He was asked if He intended to restore the "lost tribes" at that point, and did not.
I realize this surprises many, but it bears on the "whore church" understanding and your other question (most here will recognize both Jeremiah chapter 3, and Ezekiel 23 - essentially two witnesses, for two "whoring wives" - although some prefer the term 'harlot'...
Note that the descriptions from both prophets are nothing if not "graphic," and that the criticisms still apply - to both of them.)I contend (and it is readily shown, voluminously, that the descendants of those two houses/kingdoms/wives/'sticks' - Aholah and Aholabah - WERE the northern kingdom Israel, and the southern Judah, both still in exile, and now represented by the "whore church," self-proclaimed as 'universal,' and the "whore synagogue," rabbinic. Both still excel at "adding to" and "subtracting from" (take yer pick...) His Word.
It is why I suggested (and will repeat, in this context) that a careful reading of Jeremiah 31:31+ will show why they ARE still in exile, and why the "[re]new[ed] covenant" is NOT yet in place (we still need to teach!) with both "the house of Israel AND the house of Judah."
Which is the answer, I will contend. However:
Both whores were already in exile before the last of the letters was penned. However, it must be noted that modern 'rabbinic judaism' was still 'Pharasaic' (and "hypocrites" was the term Yahushua used exhaustively) while the Roman church hadn't even yet claimed 'Peter' as its first pope. And I, personally, would date many of the WORST abuses still to follow from 325 AD and beyond.
So you take it that Christ came for the lost sheep of the northern kingdom, and not for the Jews.Actually, NO. He said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (meaning the northern kingdom, already in exile. (The same story is told both in Matthew 15, see v. 24, and abbreviated in Mark 7. And it is of note that the woman was a Canaanite.)
Later, He was asked if He intended to restore the "lost tribes" at that point, and did not.
I realize this surprises many, but it bears on the "whore church" understanding and your other question (most here will recognize both Jeremiah chapter 3, and Ezekiel 23 - essentially two witnesses, for two "whoring wives" - although some prefer the term 'harlot'...
I contend (and it is readily shown, voluminously, that the descendants of those two houses/kingdoms/wives/'sticks' - Aholah and Aholabah - WERE the northern kingdom Israel, and the southern Judah, both still in exile, and now represented by the "whore church," self-proclaimed as 'universal,' and the "whore synagogue," rabbinic. Both still excel at "adding to" and "subtracting from" (take yer pick...) His Word.
It is why I suggested (and will repeat, in this context) that a careful reading of Jeremiah 31:31+ will show why they ARE still in exile, and why the "[re]new[ed] covenant" is NOT yet in place (we still need to teach!) with both "the house of Israel AND the house of Judah."
Which is the answer, I will contend. However:
Both whores were already in exile before the last of the letters was penned. However, it must be noted that modern 'rabbinic judaism' was still 'Pharasaic' (and "hypocrites" was the term Yahushua used exhaustively) while the Roman church hadn't even yet claimed 'Peter' as its first pope. And I, personally, would date many of the WORST abuses still to follow from 325 AD and beyond.
I would have thought "Israel" in this context.would have meant "greater Israel" in the sense of all the twelve tribes of Israelites.
Interesting
Not necessarily, but a good point. And it helps make the case about "context." Who are 'the Jews'? Then, or now. In THOSE days, the 'lost sheep' would probably have referred to the 'ten lost tribes.' But, no doubt, He knew that most of Judea (thus three tribes) were also 'lost' - whether they knew it or not.So you take it that Christ came for the lost sheep of the northern kingdom, and not for the Jews.
I would have thought "Israel" in this context.would have meant "greater Israel" in the sense of all the twelve tribes of Israelites.
Interesting
And he blessed that Canaanite woman and her child.
The Northern Kingdom - were sometimes called Ephraim in Scripture; and they were given a certificate of divorce, and kicked out of the land long before the arrival of Yahushua - the Salvation of YAH. He indeed came for the Northern Kingdom, because Scripture prophecies that Ephraim will return along with Judah.So you take it that Christ came for the lost sheep of the northern kingdom, and not for the Jews.
I would have thought "Israel" in this context.would have meant "greater Israel" in the sense of all the twelve tribes of Israelites.
Interesting
The problem is that the torah says - the husband that divorced his wife can not re-marry her - if she’s been with other men (Deut 24); which Ephraim did (Jeremiah 3). However, this marriage law no longer applies if the husband dies (Romans 7:2). So through the death and resurrection of Yahushua - Yahuah in the flesh - even Ephraim can be re-joined with the Most High through the Risen Messiah.
There were (and still are) those in the Southern Kingdom lost as well. Read the beginning of Luke Chapter 19. Verse 1 through 9.
He came for all of the lost sheep of Israel. The full 12 tribes. North (Ephraim) and South (Judah). And more than that - the whole world:
Isaiah 49:6 NLT
He says, “You will do more than restore the people of Israel to me. I will make you a light to the Gentiles, and you will bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”
Last edited:
In the Greek NT - the word for church is Ekklesia. Which simply means congregation or assembly.
That word “ekklesia” is used throughout the Old Testament - in the Greek Septuagint. For example:
Judges 21:5 KJV
And the children of Israel said, Who is there among all the tribes of Israel that came not up with the congregation (Ekklesia in Septuagint) unto the LORD?
Psalm 149:1 KJV
Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation (Ekklesia in Septuagint) of saints.
But it’s also used in a negative way:
Psalm 26:5
I have hated the congregation (ekklesia) of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked.
So there was a church of the saints during David’s time. And there was a church of evil doers.
In Revelation 12 - it describes a woman with a crown of 12 stars on her head, and then describes a prostitute woman in Revelation 17. The woman in revelation 12 - represents the saints. The woman in revelation 17 - represents the counterfeit. In Ephesians 5:31-32 it says that the church represents a woman. Another parallel to how the Creator described the two kingdoms of Israel - as his two wives. And both wives committed adultery against him - Ezekiel 23 (Ezekiel 22 goes into detail some of the sins).
So there is a whore church representing part of the northern kingdom. And there’s a whore synagogue representing part of the southern kingdom:
Revelation 3:9
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
Romans 2:28
For you are not a true Jew just because you were born of Jewish parents or because you have gone through the ceremony of circumcision.
The talmud goes against the torah. It adds and takes away from torah. Many Jews are following the talmudic instructions over the torah.