Hebrews 8

[Mark]

Today I remembered a couple of thoughts you may like me to respond to. The first is in reference to your comment about Messiah declaring the Passover cup to be representative of His blood, as sacrifice for the New Covenant. It's worth comparing to Adonai's covenant with Abraham, the sacrifice that ratified this covenant was made over five hundred years before the covenant promises began to take affect. Many will even say that this covenant has yet to be fully realized.

Secondly, you've suggested that the observance is fruitless, or at least incomplete without the Temple. I believe Daniel and many other righteous Jews of the Babylonian exile would take exception to that. When you begin to study , however, you find that room is left within the obedience for conditions that make the Temple inaccessible. Most easily recognized is Deuteronomy 12:21.

Melville, you were very much on my mind today and very sincerely and intimately in my prayers. If we were in a local community, I would be compelled to offer you the most warm and compassionate embrace (I'm a hugger). I understand your position and the completely foreign perspective that is being presented to you here. It's not my goal to warm you over nor to win the debate; but to struggle with you, together in pursuit of a more intimate relationship with the Father, though and by the Holy Spirit, in gratefully and honestly walking with Our Messiah.

I love you dearly, though you're probably much surprised to hear it.

Mark

[Melville]

Prodigal Girl,

Thank you for your gentle words. I am not sure you know exactly where I am coming from because you haven't asked my background, though you may think you do from my words. I really haven't gone onto this to talk about myself, however. I am very much interested in what the scriptures themselves say.

There is a very common human phenomenon, when our understanding of the the Bible is formed into doctrinal systems the things we feel we understand become filters that affect our interpretations that can be very difficult to see past, and they may really take on lives of their own.

Melville

prodigalgirl said:

Hey Melville,
Take it slow. Realize that many of us here have come from exactly where you are coming from, but over time, have come to a different understanding concerning a number of the issues you have brought up. We have realized that many things we were taught in the past, just did not add up or make sense. Mark is not trying to accuse you, he just made the observation that doctrinally, you appear to be coming from the anti-nomian camp, which has ramifications concerning many things. The many, many things you have brought up, are way too numerous to deal with in one thread. Relax, take one thing at a time. We are all willing to discuss with you, but it will take time.
Messianic assemblies are, indeed, doctrinally significantly different than churches. Take time to read, and listen, and then discuss and ask questions. One thing I would like to tell you, is that many of us were once where you are right now. So we understand the position you are coming from; we have wrestled with it ourselves.

[Melville]

Dear Mark,

No, Paul did not speak against the . I'm going to use the word Law because that is the meaning of the Greek he used in his writing. I'm assuming this is synonymous in your usage but correct me if I'm wrong. But he did characterize and define its purpose it in certain ways. He characterizes it as "the letter" and regularly contrasts it with "the spirit", and this corresponds also with the distinction between the "old" and the "new". This is something I keep failing to find that you have addressed, as when he calls himself a minister of the new covenant in the spirit, saying that the Corinthians themselves are an example of that, whereas you have said the new covenant hadn't come yet.

The oldness was the service of the letter, the law, and the newness is the spirit.

You will know more about synagogue practice than me but the church in Corinth was not a synagogue nor in a synagogue. Paul never wrote to synagogues but to the assemblies. The word "church" has so much unbiblical baggage associated with it that that I try when possible to avoid it. The word is an "out-assembly" , an assembly of certain people especially gathered out.

But before going on, there are indeed a lot of things that actually ARE interconnected. It may seem easier in a sense to divide them up into discrete points or threads, but the big picture and relatedness of the parts can be lost. I've been to the links you cited and there is one about the church. I'm not completely sure what to do, because it isn't really an isolated thing from what we're talking about here. I don't want to have to redo the same discussion in a bunch of different places because I wouldn't have time for that. Not do I want to just go on these things and appear to nitpick when I see an error. For instance, in a discussion on the covenants, someone wrote there is actually only one covenant. Well, then why does God and His apostles speak of two? No one raised this fact in response. So anyway . . .

We have very little information about what the actual meeting together of 1st century believers was like, how the meetings were conducted. Catholic and Orthodox apologists are sure it was hierarchical, liturgical, and centered around the Eucharist, though the New Testament itself does not portray this.

1 Cor 14, the only description of what actually happened, in a positive sense, goes against that. You are saying this is evidence that Paul had not abandoned Jewish practices and that this suggests that this section derives from synagogue practice and a rabbinical interpretation of the Law. He doesn't say this. Here is one of those places where a bit of information is used to support a belief but is not exegetical, per se. Paul is primarily addressing the question of the nature and administration of spiritual gifts, with a preference of what it intelligible to what is not, but there was a place for all, that it should be orderly and not in confusion. The degree to which this was part of a general carry-over of synagogue practice for the assemblies generally would be difficult to prove. What I see in it is that the church meeting is participatory, according to one's gift, not a top down dispensation from clergy to laity. He did not, by the way, entirely forbid women from speaking, but that when praying or prophesying they should have a covering on their heads. This was a matter of spiritual order. When he defends his position he does not refer to the law or rabbinical practice but rather said that neither he nor the churches of God, not the synagogues, had any other practice. Churches are synagogues are differentiated.

I don't know exactly how much of this is semantic but I am speaking much more toward the new covenant and you appear to be responding based on a non-abrogation of the old covenant. I cannot go along with a view that the new covenant is not in effect when the faith described in the New Testament is all based on the new. To say that it is in effect and to say that it is completely fulfilled in all future participants are two different things. It has to be in effect for someone to be a minister of it and for people to be experiencing the good of it, and that is clearly what was going on with those who had received the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ.

I don't see why one should be offended at my statement about Jeremiah’s prophecy, which you quoted to build your argument on. We weren't talking about Jeremiah's prophecies in general. In this quote there is no reference to the grafting in of the Gentiles, which is a historical fact, but in former times a mystery very much concealed, which preceded the fulfillment of the promise to Israel that you describe. It takes nothing away from this promise, unless one is offended by the fact that in this Israel is not sole and preeminent in all of it. This goes to the "My people" "not My people" dichotomy, Romans 9-11, children of the flesh, children of the promise, etc., etc.

The believing Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament period were brought into the newness of the Spirit. I am not altogether sure why the Law here is getting ever so much more emphasis than the Spirit. The gentile believers were not told to become Jews or take up the practices of the Law. When it was determined to write that circular letter after the controversy over circumcision, they were neither told to do that not nor to keep the Sabbath, but only to avoid fornication, consuming blood, and eating that which was strangled. There was the chance to list other things and they didn't.

You are asserting that the new covenant couldn't have been given to the gentiles nor that it could have been in effect until all Israel knows the Lord, etc, and I would sort of assert the converse. The Law, the , was not given to the gentiles but to the nation of Israel. It is very clear whom He is speaking to when He gives the ten commandments. He did not give the law to Egypt or Assyria, or to the Greeks. Yes, gentiles could join themselves to Israel. Yes, Israel is the people whom God chose for himself from among all the nations of the earth. Yes, salvation is of the Jews, insofar as we understand this correctly, because it is not on the basis of keeping the Law. If one wants to have that then one has to dismiss the New Testament. Gentiles come in on the basis of the newness of the spirit, through faith in Christ.

About keeping the Sabbath, Paul addresses the issue of different people esteeming one day above another or all days the same, and doesn't require conformity. Because this is about the new life in the Spirit.

I don't know what your background is or if you have experienced this spiritual life.

Yes, Paul was a Jew. He was also something very, very different. He was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and a minister of the new covenant in the spirit.

The problems with today's gentile "churches". There was something Paul stated that would happen, a great apostasy.

I actually don't believe the apostles were setting up a religion at all- it was a Life- not a system of beliefs and practices that can be done by externally or by rote, but it was turned into that and it didn't take long for that to begin.

You are saying that I am arguing with the text and the odd thing is that, after I have cited a number of plainly stated texts, and general thrust and emphasis, I haven't received response to what I have put forward but more addressing things I haven't actually pointed out, it has seemed to me. Your advice to look at the scriptures as a whole is good, which I've been seeking to do for quite a lot of years. It would not be jus beginning, nor am I pitting scripture against scripture. The paradox is that is what I have felt you have been doing. Some of that may be the nature of this type of forum, where somebody cites a passage with an interpretation and the other responds with other passages that support his view. But really I think we place our anchors in different places.

This is how I took your reference to the Jeremiah passage, as an anchor, or a solid foundation. The new covenant can't be going on because of this. Then I drew attention to the ingathering of the Gentiles and 2 Cor 3 with the ministry of the new covenant, and numerous other plainly stated things and I didn't get them addressed.

For now,

Melville

mark said:

Hi Melville,

You are presuming that Paul abandoned the Jewishness of his faith when he went to the gentiles. This contradicts Paul's own statements. The very last words Paul is recorded as saying in Acts 28:17 is that he never once committed anything against the "customs of the fathers". This would disallow him from speaking anything against . In fact, in Romans 3, when it is suggested that Paul teaches against , he responds that such reports are slander.

So, what is Paul saying? What does it mean that the Letter is the ministration of death? In Romans 7, he tells us that the Law is (not was) holy and the commandment is holy and just and good. Yet, when he recognized how not good he really was, in view of the Law, it revealed to him that he was on a collision course with death.

It's quite interesting that you suggest that Paul abandoned the Jewishness of his faith when teaching the gentiles, particularly when 1st Corinthians 14 describes the normal functions and procedures of the Jewsih synagogue (mucm more aptly than what we see in the Christian Church), even defending one of his positions with a rabbinical interpretation of (1st Corinthians 14:34).

Your suggestion that the believer has no part in, nor is there any significance to the New Covenant is a misunderstanding. The New Covenant is that to which he are focused. It's actualization is the second coming of the Messiah. It is that to which we look forward. However, to suggest that the Old Covenant is abbrogated or thrown out as useless is a rejection of the New Covenant as well. The Law is not "done away" in the New Covenant, it is written on the hearts of all men. We won't need taught to us anymore because it will be the outflowing of our hearts.

I am literally offended at your statement that Jeremiah's prophecy did not anticipate the inclusion of the gentiles. Is it not God's inspired Word? Are you saying that God is not sovereign? That He was caught by surprise? I would suspect that even Jeremiah was familiar with the writings of Isaiah which spoke plainly about the gentiles (see Isaiah 11:10, 60:3, and many many more). By the way, if the New Covenant is not with Israel, the nation, that Adonai failed at His promises through the prophecies of Isaiah. In fact, the gentile Church's rejection of Sabbath is a denial that Old Testamant prophecies regarding man's future state is at all relevant (Isaiah 56:6).

Paul consistently demonstrated himself as a observant Jewish rabbi. ON three occassions in the New Testament he is given the opportunity top represent himself. Consistetly,. before Jewish and gentile courts alike, he defined himself as a Jew. Never once does he refer to himself as a Christian. When one begins to understand the Hebraic context of the Scriptures, everything that Paul says lines up consistently with Judaism. He was not teaching a new religion. He was teaching Judaism, in an understanding that Messiah has come and that He is returning.

It's so disappointing that the Church has come to interpret the New Testament as legitimacy to abandoning . This very rejection, denies the New Covenant's position as being in affect. They won't need anyone to teach them because it is in their hearts. You may see us getting closer and closer to that. Hmmm, let's see: homosexual ordained ministers in several denominations today, pedophelia among priests and church workers of every denomination on the rise, Islam and Mormonism growing faster than any other religion in the world today... the notion that we are growing into the New Covenant day by day is not the reality of the world that I see; nor is it what Paul warned Timothy (2nd Timothy 4:3).

Your argument is with the text, Melville, not with me. is a ministration of death in that it reveals how wicked and sinful we really are. The Christian response has overwhelmingly been to cover our heads and say that's not important because I'm saved by grace. That it doesn't matter anymore. (By the way, everone in the Old Testament was saved by grace, too.) Our Messianic response is altogether different. Because we are saved by grace and adopted into God's kingdom, we want to live as citizens of that kingdom, learning more and growing closer to Him through obedience, not by disdain of His Holy Word. My appeal to you is to begin to look at the Scripture as a whole, not pitting one Scripture against another as if not all were the inspired Word of the same God who is relevant to us and who is utterly unchanging.

[Melville]

Dear Brother Mark,

No, I am not surprised at your love. I might have been at the beginning but after basically your first personal response I felt the same for you, and it is so with our brother Reuel, whom I met through work. You know, there is a distinction between our minds and our spirits, who are in Christ. Your love strongly suggests that you are.

One thing that is really great in these dialogues, along with the graciousness I'm finding, is that it is so profoundly scriptural, which may challenge each of us to go deeper, not as defending our positions or "winning" but to get at the truth. This forum's title is The Love of God, and I hope that He may enable us to continue in dialogue in that spirit, as long as it is fruitful unto Him.

The Lord Jesus did not say the cup is representative of His Blood but IS His blood of the new covenant. We do want to distinguish this from transubstantiation. But he didn't say this will become, or "in that day", etc. Paul took it right over to the church in Corinth, and when there was the problem (1 Cor 11), where people were getting sick and even dying, well, this was no small thing.

We seem to have some difficulty defining these covenants' realization, fulfillment, being in effect, etc. The (law) is "fulfilled"? It was a standard. But wasn't it fulfilled by Jesus (Yeshua), the only one who could? Anyway, I'm not sure the length of time before realization of the final and and when the covenant went into effect goes to whether the covenant is valid. Here it goes to the relaibility of God's promises . . .

Many things we have to wait for in faith that the promise holds when we don't see it.

Yes. You may be surprised that I've read "". I by no means reject it. It depends on how one takes it and what one does with it. Yes, I know the places when the Temple would be inaccessible. I don't see a passage where this is generalized. The Law is very specific, no? This was about Israel in the land of promise: God's intention. I haven't read laws about how they should practice the (law) when they were, say, carried away captive to foreign lands to serve other gods because of gross disobedience and final spiritual harlotry.
Ah, but there was the wonder of the remnant, of which Daniel was one. I don't know how many have considered the implications of what it meant to have been the chief of all the wise men of Babylon, but the greatly beloved Daniel was head administrator over all sorts of things that we would not like. They didn't touch his heart, though, and this was God's grace and love and intention that transcends. This was beyond observances. He was faithful to honor God, and caught by the adversaries, but overcame.

Daniel had little opportunity for legal Israelite observances. His relationship with God that I can see documented was personal and deeply moral/spiritual. Would die before denying His Name.

We can't forget that the Jews in Babylon were the exiles out of a people who had been in gross apostasy. As we read Ezekiel, terrible things were going on in Jerusalem!!! That prophet was chosen, at quite a great cost to him personally, to face the captives and deliver God's word to them. They weren't that well spoken of . Rebellious house and all that. You tell me how observant thery were . . .

Thank God for the beauty and hope and blessings of Ezra, with Haggai and Zechariah!!! But that was not the final thing, though there was something of God's delight expressed in the return from captivity that wasn't there before except in the Psalms. But this was real, on the earth! Have you ever read what it says about Zerubbabel?

But then comes Nehemiah. How I love that man. But even after the wall was built, the problem was within. Same as what Ezra had to deal with, only worse. Marrying foreign wives, giving a room in the temple to the enemy . . . and then Malachi . . .

Love to you, too, In Christ,

Melville

mark said:

Today I remembered a couple of thoughts you may like me to respond to. The first is in reference to your comment about Messiah declaring the Passover cup to be representative of His blood, as sacrifice for the New Covenant. It's worth comparing to Adonai's covenant with Abraham, the sacrifice that ratified this covenant was made over five hundred years before the covenant promises began to take affect. Many will even say that this covenant has yet to be fully realized.

Secondly, you've suggested that the observance is fruitless, or at least incomplete without the Temple. I believe Daniel and many other righteous Jews of the Babylonian exile would take exception to that. When you begin to study , however, you find that room is left within the obedience for conditions that make the Temple inaccessible. Most easily recognized is Deuteronomy 12:21.

Melville, you were very much on my mind today and very sincerely and intimately in my prayers. If we were in a local community, I would be compelled to offer you the most warm and compassionate embrace (I'm a hugger). I understand your position and the completely foreign perspective that is being presented to you here. It's not my goal to warm you over nor to win the debate; but to struggle with you, together in pursuit of a more intimate relationship with the Father, though and by the Holy Spirit, in gratefully and honestly walking with Our Messiah.

I love you dearly, though you're probably much surprised to hear it.

Mark

[Mark]

Dear Mark,

No, Paul did not speak against the . I'm going to use the word Law because that is the meaning of the Greek he used in his writing. I'm assuming this is synonymous in your usage but correct me if I'm wrong. But he did characterize and define its purpose it in certain ways. He characterizes it as "the letter" and regularly contrasts it with "the spirit", and this corresponds also with the distinction between the "old" and the "new". This is something I keep failing to find that you have addressed, as when he calls himself a minister of the new covenant in the spirit, saying that the Corinthians themselves are an example of that, whereas you have said the new covenant hadn't come yet.

The oldness was the service of the letter, the law, and the newness is the spirit.

So, let’s get practical here. What’s the difference between "the letter" and "the spirit"? When we are commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy, is that the letter of the Law or is it the Spirit of the Law? What about when we are to help our neighbor’s ox out of the ditch? What about the distinction between clean and unclean? I’m inclined to lump your position in with the generic dispensationalist perspective, given your examples of Mark 7:19 and the Temple. The bottom line of this view is, "If I agree or find value in it, then it is the spirit of the Law. If I find no value in it then it must be the letter." James said that if you keep the whole Law and stumble in one point than you are guilty of all of it. The Christian response is, "I only keep part of the Law so I’m not guilty of any of it." What kind of strange, twisted logic is that? (Please enjoy the humor of it along with me and do not take offense; but listen to what it is that I am saying.) Messiah said, "All of the Law and the prophets are summed up in this one one Word, to love your neighbor as yourself." Wait a minute… all the letter of the Law or all the spirit? Messiah makes no distinction. He says, "All."

There is, clearly a distinction between the letter and the spirit, as you have been quite assertive to point out. And, I apologize if it seems to you that I have skirted what seems to be your core issue. You will find that, with absolute consistency, Paul’s statements against the Law are a response to it being used as ammunition against someone else, one-upping you’re neighbor or justifying yourself as righteous. 1st Timothy 1Paul declares this most eloquently. The spirit of the Law is the same mitzvot (commandments) yet with a focus upon one’s individual relationship toward God (Romans 7).

You will know more about synagogue practice than me but the church in Corinth was not a synagogue nor in a synagogue. Paul never wrote to synagogues but to the assemblies. The word "church" has so much unbiblical baggage associated with it that that I try when possible to avoid it. The word is an "out-assembly" , an assembly of certain people especially gathered out.

I’m sure this must be a minor point; but until Acts 19:9, Jews and gentiles met together to worship in the synagogue. There is no evidence outside of Ephesus that the believers in Messiah ever studied the Scriptures (Old Testament at that point) outside of the synagogue anywhere else. In fact, in Acts 15:21, it is presumed by Peter (Simeon in KJV) that gentile believers will be able to learn Moses and the Prophets in the synagogue in every city. One more incidental is that in James 2:2, the word that has been translated "assembly" is the word "syanagogue".

But before going on, there are indeed a lot of things that actually ARE interconnected. It may seem easier in a sense to divide them up into discrete points or threads, but the big picture and relatedness of the parts can be lost. I've been to the links you cited and there is one about the church. I'm not completely sure what to do, because it isn't really an isolated thing from what we're talking about here. I don't want to have to redo the same discussion in a bunch of different places because I wouldn't have time for that. Not do I want to just go on these things and appear to nitpick when I see an error. For instance, in a discussion on the covenants, someone wrote there is actually only one covenant. Well, then why does God and His apostles speak of two? No one raised this fact in response. So anyway . . .

Actually, there are several covenants. There’s a covenant with Noah (Genesis 6:18 and chapter 9), the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15 and 17) continued to Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 2:24), the covenant with Israel through Moses (Exodus 6 and 19), a covenant with David (Psalm 89:3) and with Solomon (2nd Samuel 23:5). Yet, there is a consistent factor in all of these covenants. They were all given by the same God: the God who is the same yesterday, today and forever, the God who never changes. All of these covenants have an enduring property, that since His Word never ends, His covenants never cease… except one. It’s never suggested that the covenant with Noah should end when the covenant with Abraham began, nor that the covenant with Abraham should no longer apply when Adonai establishes His covenant with David. What we see is that each succeeding covenant fits within the confines and context of the preceding covenant, as though He is drawing His single plan more sharply into focus. It is only with the covenant through Moses do we get this idea that one must end so that the next may begin. This is not because this covenant does not have the enduring characteristics of all the rest; it is because the application is different. The letter to the Hebrews tells us plainly that the covenant through Moses never atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:1-4), that salvation has always been by grace through faith in the coming Messiah (Hebrews 4:2). It wasn’t a plan of works before Messiah and a plan of faith after. It has always been the same plan, with the same God for the same people. was never meant to save us, it has always been, and continues to be proof of why we need to be saved.

We have very little information about what the actual meeting together of 1st century believers was like, how the meetings were conducted. Catholic and Orthodox apologists are sure it was hierarchical, liturgical, and centered around the Eucharist, though the New Testament itself does not portray this.

1 Cor 14, the only description of what actually happened, in a positive sense, goes against that. You are saying this is evidence that Paul had not abandoned Jewish practices and that this suggests that this section derives from synagogue practice and a rabbinical interpretation of the Law. He doesn't say this. Here is one of those places where a bit of information is used to support a belief but is not exegetical, per se. Paul is primarily addressing the question of the nature and administration of spiritual gifts, with a preference of what it intelligible to what is not, but there was a place for all, that it should be orderly and not in confusion. The degree to which this was part of a general carry-over of synagogue practice for the assemblies generally would be difficult to prove. What I see in it is that the church meeting is participatory, according to one's gift, not a top down dispensation from clergy to laity. He did not, by the way, entirely forbid women from speaking, but that when praying or prophesying they should have a covering on their heads. This was a matter of spiritual order. When he defends his position he does not refer to the law or rabbinical practice but rather said that neither he nor the churches of God, not the synagogues, had any other practice. Churches are synagogues are differentiated.

What gentile Christianity has arrogantly and ignorantly presumed is that silence in the New Testament suggests that the discussion is unimportant, forgetting that the 1st Century believers had and used the Old Testament as their only Bible: this was "the Scriptures". One may presume, more logically, that the reason why the method of worship is not described in Paul’s letters in greater detail because it did not change from the way they were practicing. Already I have demonstrated that the early believers, until and past Acts 19 in most areas, met in the local synagogue. In 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, Paul exhorts the believers there to "stand fast, and hold the traditions you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." What traditions do you suppose he was talking about, Christmas? Actually, you’ll find that James Strong defines this word as "Jewish traditionary Law."

I don't know exactly how much of this is semantic but I am speaking much more toward the new covenant and you appear to be responding based on a non-abrogation of the old covenant. I cannot go along with a view that the new covenant is not in effect when the faith described in the New Testament is all based on the new. To say that it is in effect and to say that it is completely fulfilled in all future participants are two different things. It has to be in effect for someone to be a minister of it and for people to be experiencing the good of it, and that is clearly what was going on with those who had received the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ.

There is some truth to what you are saying; and as I adamantly reject the idea that the New Covenant abrogates the application of in our daily worship, our hope does not rest in but in the Messiah. We are not observant to be saved. We are observant because we are saved. Yet, the New Covenant does not come into fruitation, because the conditions describing the New Covenant do not take affect, until after Messiah returns. We anticipate that fact, we live as knowing that it is an established fact; but we do not ignore the reality of the sinful nature our selves, nor dismiss the applicability of the Scripture.

I don't see why one should be offended at my statement about Jeremiah’s prophecy, which you quoted to build your argument on. We weren't talking about Jeremiah's prophecies in general. In this quote there is no reference to the grafting in of the Gentiles, which is a historical fact, but in former times a mystery very much concealed, which preceded the fulfillment of the promise to Israel that you describe. It takes nothing away from this promise, unless one is offended by the fact that in this Israel is not sole and preeminent in all of it. This goes to the "My people" "not My people" dichotomy, Romans 9-11, children of the flesh, children of the promise, etc., etc.

You cannot take the Jeremiah 31 prophecy out of the argument of the Old and New Covenant. And you are right, we are not talking about Jeremiah’s prophecies in general. We are discussing the prophecy of the New Covenant which is specifically given to the nation of Israel and to the people of Judah: not to "the Church". What the prophecy does not acknowledge is the gentile deviation for the Jewish faith (nor does the prophecies of Isiaih). The Christian perspective has stolen Israel’s birthright and claimed it for herself. In order to do so, she must completely redefine the term "Israel" in the book of Revelation. The New Covenant is given to Israel, not the Church; but we are graciously allowed to join in that covenant relationship with her, on God’s terms, not ours, just as we always have been.

The believing Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament period were brought into the newness of the Spirit. I am not altogether sure why the Law here is getting ever so much more emphasis than the Spirit. The gentile believers were not told to become Jews or take up the practices of the Law. When it was determined to write that circular letter after the controversy over circumcision, they were neither told to do that not nor to keep the Sabbath, but only to avoid fornication, consuming blood, and eating that which was strangled. There was the chance to list other things and they didn't.

You definitely need to see the Acts 15 thread. Your arguments are very empty on this subject. He didn’t tell them not to murder, rape or steal either.

You are asserting that the new covenant couldn't have been given to the gentiles nor that it could have been in effect until all Israel knows the Lord, etc, and I would sort of assert the converse. The Law, the , was not given to the gentiles but to the nation of Israel. It is very clear whom He is speaking to when He gives the ten commandments. He did not give the law to Egypt or Assyria, or to the Greeks. Yes, gentiles could join themselves to Israel. Yes, Israel is the people whom God chose for himself from among all the nations of the earth. Yes, salvation is of the Jews, insofar as we understand this correctly, because it is not on the basis of keeping the Law. If one wants to have that then one has to dismiss the New Testament. Gentiles come in on the basis of the newness of the spirit, through faith in Christ.

Please understand that my argument is not preferring the Old Testament or the Old Covenant above the New. It is not rejecting or dismissing the writings of the New Testament; but seeing that they can be interpreted consistently and harmoniously with the Old Testament. Walking in the Spirit does not mean, for me, walking in an empty whispy Jesus is so wonderful feeling, like a fourteen-year-old crush. It is walking in daily obedience, making every aspect of my life a point of obedience. Failing, but recognizing that failure then coming back to Him for forgiveness and reconciliation. This is "walking in the Spirit". In the same context that Paul says "quench not the spirit" he also says, "abstain from all appearance of evil."

About keeping the Sabbath, Paul addresses the issue of different people esteeming one day above another or all days the same, and doesn't require conformity. Because this is about the new life in the Spirit.

In another thread we've discussed and explained why Paul is not suggesting we dismiss the Sabbath.

I don't know what your background is or if you have experienced this spiritual life.

Yes, Paul was a Jew. He was also something very, very different. He was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and a minister of the new covenant in the spirit.

The problems with today's gentile "churches". There was something Paul stated that would happen, a great apostasy.

On this we agree. The difference is on where we believe that this apostasy began. I would suggest it rose most dramatically with Justin Maryr who wrote Christian anti-semitism at the beginning of the second Century.

I actually don't believe the apostles were setting up a religion at all- it was a Life- not a system of beliefs and practices that can be done by externally or by rote, but it was turned into that and it didn't take long for that to begin.

You are saying that I am arguing with the text and the odd thing is that, after I have cited a number of plainly stated texts, and general thrust and emphasis, I haven't received response to what I have put forward but more addressing things I haven't actually pointed out, it has seemed to me. Your advice to look at the scriptures as a whole is good, which I've been seeking to do for quite a lot of years. It would not be jus beginning, nor am I pitting scripture against scripture. The paradox is that is what I have felt you have been doing. Some of that may be the nature of this type of forum, where somebody cites a passage with an interpretation and the other responds with other passages that support his view. But really I think we place our anchors in different places.

This is so very true. We believe that the foundation of all biblical interpretation rests in . We interpret all of Scripture as it lines up consistently with . This is based upon the teaching of Isaiah: "To the Law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20) We believe that if the New Testament writers spoke in any way that was contrary or would lead men astray from , this would discredit their validity. We believe that God’s chosen people are the Jewish people, and not by accident and not simply because of geography. He has placed and preserved them to demonstrate how we are to seek Him in humble obedience.

Messiah said in Matthew 28:20, "teaching them" the gentiles "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded thee." All things whatsoever means leaving nothing out. Messiah was a Jew who taught within the definable context of Judaism. He even commanded his disciples to obey the teaching of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:2-3).

This is how I took your reference to the Jeremiah passage, as an anchor, or a solid foundation. The new covenant can't be going on because of this. Then I drew attention to the ingathering of the Gentiles and 2 Cor 3 with the ministry of the new covenant, and numerous other plainly stated things and I didn't get them addressed.

For now,

Melville

I’m hoping that I have addressed, at least the substance of what you are trying to say. You stated that you didn’t have time to answer every individual thread. I suppose, I have more time to re-answer these same questions over again for you. Please pardon mis spellings or missed words because I don’t have time. But you, and this subject are very important to me.

[Prodigal Girl]

Very good explanation, Mark. One question I have: the rabbi at my MJ congregation insists that gentiles were not allowed in the synagogues, period. I contend that they were allowed in the synagogues; not in certain parts of the temple, but yes they were allowed in the synagogues at least before the temple was destroyed. Do you have a historical reference that would support my position? I know I read it in one of my references, but can not remember which one.

[Melville]

Mark,

Thank you for your detailed reply and explanation of your beliefs. It will take more time than I have now to respond in any detail. I understand your position better. There is a lot one could respond to. I am not seeing that you have addressed what I have brought forward but only to assert your viewpoint. The biggest issue may be the contrast between your thought structure and emphasis and that of the New Testament. Your emphasis is the , which in the Greek NT translated into our language is the Law. The New Testament emphasis is the Spirit. I'm speaking specifically of what is emphasized. You do not emphhasize the spirit at all. I shall study your statements more thoroughtly before going into detail, but for now I don't see that you have come to terms with this, with the NT thrust of saying NOT the Law, NOT the letter BUT the spirit.

For the moment a point about keeping the Law (the ) comes to mind. I'm a gentile who has come into living faith in Jesus Christ. You are saying I would not be saved by following the Law but since being saved (and that needs to be more clearly defined) I would properly be keeping the Law because I am saved, if I’ve got it right.

Now I've been enjoying a good Crab Louis all my life. I’m thinking about following the path you lay out, keeping the law. But I’m reading in the Law and find some very specific instructions about which foods should be eaten and which not to be eaten. I’d never thought about this before and one day it hits me. Crab doesn’t have fins and scales. Much as I like it, I can’t do this anymore. I give it up. Next time I go to a seafood place I avoid the crab things. Hmmmm. Nope, lobster is out too. So I pick the salmon. I’ve done well and feel good. I’ve kept the law. I look around at others who are having crab. Oh, if they only knew what they were doing . . . At least I’m not.

Some time after, I go out for lunch and the soup of the day is clam chowder. I love clam chowder and without thinking I order it. Later I’m reading in the same part of the law and it hits me. Clams don’t have fins and scales. I’ve done it again. I’ve transgressed . . . But I repent and believe I’m forgiven.

At a certain point, not sure why, I’m feeling low, want to go out to dinner and it starts haunting me- the Crab Louis! I want one. No, I shouldn’t. The Law is clear. But I want one. I resist. Oh, good. I’ve succeeded. Thank God!

But it keeps coming back. I can’t get it out of my mind. It grows larger, until I can’t stand it. I sneak out one evening, giving some excuse, and find the best Crab Louis I know. And I do it. I order it and eat it, looking around to see if any of my Law keeping friends might see me. Nope. It’s OK. But it isn’t. I’ve blown it. I’m condemned. Will the Lord forgive me for this willful sin, doing what I know is against the Law?

I trust you understand that this story is hypothetical but also based on experience. There are certain ramifications (only some of which are in the story) to expect from following the path you are advocating, for the believer in Christ to keep the , which has to be kept in toto. One infraction makes one guilty of all. (I didn’t even go into pork chops and bacon.) If it’s all of a piece then it’s all got to be kept.

I’ll try to list some of the consequences. We start reading the law as something we’d better do. We find things we are doing which the Letter says not to. We agree with this. One day we find something we’ve always done that the Law says no to. In my example it isn’t a big, overt wrongdoing which virtually everybody recognizes, like murder 1. But it’s there. This seems easy, really, sort of. One likes the taste of crab but one is willing to give it up for God. We start reading the Law more. After all, it says the Law of the Lord is one’s delight. Whoa! There are other things one has been doing. OK then, we’ll give them up, too. We’ll toe the line. We learn more and more of the Law and find more and more things to do and not do. We’re doing OK.

We start seeing other people not toeing the line and may either pass judgment or feel pity on them. This is [the fallen] human nature. But then our appetites come in and they eventually get the better of us. We slip up. We may go through a period of confessing our slipups but there comes a time when we may develop secrets, the further we advance in outwardly observing. Our sins need to be hidden the more we speak to others about what they should do, or not. There is an insidious self-righteousness that has crept in. We’re OK, unlike those others, but we keep slipping up and we want to hide it.

This is the consequence of the Letter, the law of sin and death. The New Covenant is not like this, where there is a new Life inside that leads us.

Now I want to ask you a very personal question. Have you ever eaten and when was the last time you have eaten anything from the waters that didn’t have both fins and scales, and when was the last time? This is !

Someone had written here that in Mark 7:19, when the Lord said that it isn’t what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out, thus declaring all foods clean, that this is not in the Greek. I beg to differ, having gone back to look it up. Mark 7:14-23. nasb.scripturetext.com/mark/7.htm
This wondrous resource has the various Greek texts linked, and I don’t see this declaration missing.
Here’s the interlinear. interlinear.biblos.com/mark/7.htm
Here are the various texts. biblos.com/mark/7-19.htm


The dietary laws, and the per se, were not given to the Gentiles to observe. The Lord God didn't require the beleiveing Gentiles to change their dietary habits, with a few exceptions, even though the Law is clear. Titus was not requireds to be circumcised. Do you get this at all?

So the “I” in the above story had been led down a wild goose chase in this.

Melville

mark said:

Dear Mark,

No, Paul did not speak against the . I'm going to use the word Law because that is the meaning of the Greek he used in his writing. I'm assuming this is synonymous in your usage but correct me if I'm wrong. But he did characterize and define its purpose it in certain ways. He characterizes it as "the letter" and regularly contrasts it with "the spirit", and this corresponds also with the distinction between the "old" and the "new". This is something I keep failing to find that you have addressed, as when he calls himself a minister of the new covenant in the spirit, saying that the Corinthians themselves are an example of that, whereas you have said the new covenant hadn't come yet.

The oldness was the service of the letter, the law, and the newness is the spirit.

So, let’s get practical here. What’s the difference between "the letter" and "the spirit"? When we are commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy, is that the letter of the Law or is it the Spirit of the Law? What about when we are to help our neighbor’s ox out of the ditch? What about the distinction between clean and unclean? I’m inclined to lump your position in with the generic dispensationalist perspective, given your examples of Mark 7:19 and the Temple. The bottom line of this view is, "If I agree or find value in it, then it is the spirit of the Law. If I find no value in it then it must be the letter." James said that if you keep the whole Law and stumble in one point than you are guilty of all of it. The Christian response is, "I only keep part of the Law so I’m not guilty of any of it." What kind of strange, twisted logic is that? (Please enjoy the humor of it along with me and do not take offense; but listen to what it is that I am saying.) Messiah said, "All of the Law and the prophets are summed up in this one one Word, to love your neighbor as yourself." Wait a minute… all the letter of the Law or all the spirit? Messiah makes no distinction. He says, "All."

There is, clearly a distinction between the letter and the spirit, as you have been quite assertive to point out. And, I apologize if it seems to you that I have skirted what seems to be your core issue. You will find that, with absolute consistency, Paul’s statements against the Law are a response to it being used as ammunition against someone else, one-upping you’re neighbor or justifying yourself as righteous. 1st Timothy 1Paul declares this most eloquently. The spirit of the Law is the same mitzvot (commandments) yet with a focus upon one’s individual relationship toward God (Romans 7).

You will know more about synagogue practice than me but the church in Corinth was not a synagogue nor in a synagogue. Paul never wrote to synagogues but to the assemblies. The word "church" has so much unbiblical baggage associated with it that that I try when possible to avoid it. The word is an "out-assembly" , an assembly of certain people especially gathered out.

I’m sure this must be a minor point; but until Acts 19:9, Jews and gentiles met together to worship in the synagogue. There is no evidence outside of Ephesus that the believers in Messiah ever studied the Scriptures (Old Testament at that point) outside of the synagogue anywhere else. In fact, in Acts 15:21, it is presumed by Peter (Simeon in KJV) that gentile believers will be able to learn Moses and the Prophets in the synagogue in every city. One more incidental is that in James 2:2, the word that has been translated "assembly" is the word "syanagogue".

But before going on, there are indeed a lot of things that actually ARE interconnected. It may seem easier in a sense to divide them up into discrete points or threads, but the big picture and relatedness of the parts can be lost. I've been to the links you cited and there is one about the church. I'm not completely sure what to do, because it isn't really an isolated thing from what we're talking about here. I don't want to have to redo the same discussion in a bunch of different places because I wouldn't have time for that. Not do I want to just go on these things and appear to nitpick when I see an error. For instance, in a discussion on the covenants, someone wrote there is actually only one covenant. Well, then why does God and His apostles speak of two? No one raised this fact in response. So anyway . . .

Actually, there are several covenants. There’s a covenant with Noah (Genesis 6:18 and chapter 9), the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15 and 17) continued to Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 2:24), the covenant with Israel through Moses (Exodus 6 and 19), a covenant with David (Psalm 89:3) and with Solomon (2nd Samuel 23:5). Yet, there is a consistent factor in all of these covenants. They were all given by the same God: the God who is the same yesterday, today and forever, the God who never changes. All of these covenants have an enduring property, that since His Word never ends, His covenants never cease… except one. It’s never suggested that the covenant with Noah should end when the covenant with Abraham began, nor that the covenant with Abraham should no longer apply when Adonai establishes His covenant with David. What we see is that each succeeding covenant fits within the confines and context of the preceding covenant, as though He is drawing His single plan more sharply into focus. It is only with the covenant through Moses do we get this idea that one must end so that the next may begin. This is not because this covenant does not have the enduring characteristics of all the rest; it is because the application is different. The letter to the Hebrews tells us plainly that the covenant through Moses never atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:1-4), that salvation has always been by grace through faith in the coming Messiah (Hebrews 4:2). It wasn’t a plan of works before Messiah and a plan of faith after. It has always been the same plan, with the same God for the same people. was never meant to save us, it has always been, and continues to be proof of why we need to be saved.

We have very little information about what the actual meeting together of 1st century believers was like, how the meetings were conducted. Catholic and Orthodox apologists are sure it was hierarchical, liturgical, and centered around the Eucharist, though the New Testament itself does not portray this.

1 Cor 14, the only description of what actually happened, in a positive sense, goes against that. You are saying this is evidence that Paul had not abandoned Jewish practices and that this suggests that this section derives from synagogue practice and a rabbinical interpretation of the Law. He doesn't say this. Here is one of those places where a bit of information is used to support a belief but is not exegetical, per se. Paul is primarily addressing the question of the nature and administration of spiritual gifts, with a preference of what it intelligible to what is not, but there was a place for all, that it should be orderly and not in confusion. The degree to which this was part of a general carry-over of synagogue practice for the assemblies generally would be difficult to prove. What I see in it is that the church meeting is participatory, according to one's gift, not a top down dispensation from clergy to laity. He did not, by the way, entirely forbid women from speaking, but that when praying or prophesying they should have a covering on their heads. This was a matter of spiritual order. When he defends his position he does not refer to the law or rabbinical practice but rather said that neither he nor the churches of God, not the synagogues, had any other practice. Churches are synagogues are differentiated.

What gentile Christianity has arrogantly and ignorantly presumed is that silence in the New Testament suggests that the discussion is unimportant, forgetting that the 1st Century believers had and used the Old Testament as their only Bible: this was "the Scriptures". One may presume, more logically, that the reason why the method of worship is not described in Paul’s letters in greater detail because it did not change from the way they were practicing. Already I have demonstrated that the early believers, until and past Acts 19 in most areas, met in the local synagogue. In 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, Paul exhorts the believers there to "stand fast, and hold the traditions you have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." What traditions do you suppose he was talking about, Christmas? Actually, you’ll find that James Strong defines this word as "Jewish traditionary Law."

I don't know exactly how much of this is semantic but I am speaking much more toward the new covenant and you appear to be responding based on a non-abrogation of the old covenant. I cannot go along with a view that the new covenant is not in effect when the faith described in the New Testament is all based on the new. To say that it is in effect and to say that it is completely fulfilled in all future participants are two different things. It has to be in effect for someone to be a minister of it and for people to be experiencing the good of it, and that is clearly what was going on with those who had received the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ.

There is some truth to what you are saying; and as I adamantly reject the idea that the New Covenant abrogates the application of in our daily worship, our hope does not rest in but in the Messiah. We are not observant to be saved. We are observant because we are saved. Yet, the New Covenant does not come into fruitation, because the conditions describing the New Covenant do not take affect, until after Messiah returns. We anticipate that fact, we live as knowing that it is an established fact; but we do not ignore the reality of the sinful nature our selves, nor dismiss the applicability of the Scripture.

I don't see why one should be offended at my statement about Jeremiah’s prophecy, which you quoted to build your argument on. We weren't talking about Jeremiah's prophecies in general. In this quote there is no reference to the grafting in of the Gentiles, which is a historical fact, but in former times a mystery very much concealed, which preceded the fulfillment of the promise to Israel that you describe. It takes nothing away from this promise, unless one is offended by the fact that in this Israel is not sole and preeminent in all of it. This goes to the "My people" "not My people" dichotomy, Romans 9-11, children of the flesh, children of the promise, etc., etc.

You cannot take the Jeremiah 31 prophecy out of the argument of the Old and New Covenant. And you are right, we are not talking about Jeremiah’s prophecies in general. We are discussing the prophecy of the New Covenant which is specifically given to the nation of Israel and to the people of Judah: not to "the Church". What the prophecy does not acknowledge is the gentile deviation for the Jewish faith (nor does the prophecies of Isiaih). The Christian perspective has stolen Israel’s birthright and claimed it for herself. In order to do so, she must completely redefine the term "Israel" in the book of Revelation. The New Covenant is given to Israel, not the Church; but we are graciously allowed to join in that covenant relationship with her, on God’s terms, not ours, just as we always have been.

The believing Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament period were brought into the newness of the Spirit. I am not altogether sure why the Law here is getting ever so much more emphasis than the Spirit. The gentile believers were not told to become Jews or take up the practices of the Law. When it was determined to write that circular letter after the controversy over circumcision, they were neither told to do that not nor to keep the Sabbath, but only to avoid fornication, consuming blood, and eating that which was strangled. There was the chance to list other things and they didn't.

You definitely need to see the Acts 15 thread. Your arguments are very empty on this subject. He didn’t tell them not to murder, rape or steal either.

You are asserting that the new covenant couldn't have been given to the gentiles nor that it could have been in effect until all Israel knows the Lord, etc, and I would sort of assert the converse. The Law, the , was not given to the gentiles but to the nation of Israel. It is very clear whom He is speaking to when He gives the ten commandments. He did not give the law to Egypt or Assyria, or to the Greeks. Yes, gentiles could join themselves to Israel. Yes, Israel is the people whom God chose for himself from among all the nations of the earth. Yes, salvation is of the Jews, insofar as we understand this correctly, because it is not on the basis of keeping the Law. If one wants to have that then one has to dismiss the New Testament. Gentiles come in on the basis of the newness of the spirit, through faith in Christ.

Please understand that my argument is not preferring the Old Testament or the Old Covenant above the New. It is not rejecting or dismissing the writings of the New Testament; but seeing that they can be interpreted consistently and harmoniously with the Old Testament. Walking in the Spirit does not mean, for me, walking in an empty whispy Jesus is so wonderful feeling, like a fourteen-year-old crush. It is walking in daily obedience, making every aspect of my life a point of obedience. Failing, but recognizing that failure then coming back to Him for forgiveness and reconciliation. This is "walking in the Spirit". In the same context that Paul says "quench not the spirit" he also says, "abstain from all appearance of evil."

About keeping the Sabbath, Paul addresses the issue of different people esteeming one day above another or all days the same, and doesn't require conformity. Because this is about the new life in the Spirit.

In another thread we've discussed and explained why Paul is not suggesting we dismiss the Sabbath.

I don't know what your background is or if you have experienced this spiritual life.

Yes, Paul was a Jew. He was also something very, very different. He was an apostle of Jesus Christ, and a minister of the new covenant in the spirit.

The problems with today's gentile "churches". There was something Paul stated that would happen, a great apostasy.

On this we agree. The difference is on where we believe that this apostasy began. I would suggest it rose most dramatically with Justin Maryr who wrote Christian anti-semitism at the beginning of the second Century.

I actually don't believe the apostles were setting up a religion at all- it was a Life- not a system of beliefs and practices that can be done by externally or by rote, but it was turned into that and it didn't take long for that to begin.

You are saying that I am arguing with the text and the odd thing is that, after I have cited a number of plainly stated texts, and general thrust and emphasis, I haven't received response to what I have put forward but more addressing things I haven't actually pointed out, it has seemed to me. Your advice to look at the scriptures as a whole is good, which I've been seeking to do for quite a lot of years. It would not be jus beginning, nor am I pitting scripture against scripture. The paradox is that is what I have felt you have been doing. Some of that may be the nature of this type of forum, where somebody cites a passage with an interpretation and the other responds with other passages that support his view. But really I think we place our anchors in different places.

This is so very true. We believe that the foundation of all biblical interpretation rests in . We interpret all of Scripture as it lines up consistently with . This is based upon the teaching of Isaiah: "To the Law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20) We believe that if the New Testament writers spoke in any way that was contrary or would lead men astray from , this would discredit their validity. We believe that God’s chosen people are the Jewish people, and not by accident and not simply because of geography. He has placed and preserved them to demonstrate how we are to seek Him in humble obedience.

Messiah said in Matthew 28:20, "teaching them" the gentiles "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded thee." All things whatsoever means leaving nothing out. Messiah was a Jew who taught within the definable context of Judaism. He even commanded his disciples to obey the teaching of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:2-3).

This is how I took your reference to the Jeremiah passage, as an anchor, or a solid foundation. The new covenant can't be going on because of this. Then I drew attention to the ingathering of the Gentiles and 2 Cor 3 with the ministry of the new covenant, and numerous other plainly stated things and I didn't get them addressed.

For now,

Melville

I’m hoping that I have addressed, at least the substance of what you are trying to say. You stated that you didn’t have time to answer every individual thread. I suppose, I have more time to re-answer these same questions over again for you. Please pardon mis spellings or missed words because I don’t have time. But you, and this subject are very important to me.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Wow! I need to get my head out of my books more often and check out what is going on here at the forum.

Hmmm...I few issues need to be addressed with this particular thread (this should be applied to others as well). Mark, you have been most patient. Thank you.

Firstly, this thread is getting too messy. We need to stay focused on the subject in question.

Dear Melville, you are bringing up many various passages that need to be handled in their own threads. It is not possible to effectively discuss everything you have brought up in all your responses. Instead of bringing up passage after passage that you think supports your anti-nomian position, please, let us handle each passage that you find significant one at a time in it's own thread. In many cases, there are already threads dedicated to the passages in question. Please let us keep our discussion focused within the various threads that are dedicated to a specific passage. In this case, we are dealing with Hebrews chapter 8. As Mark has already stated, we have current threads that you should go through, participate in, or start a new one (if one has not been started already for a specific scripture passage). But, please don't unload everything that you believe supports your anti-nomian position against Adonai's in one thread. Not only is it hard to read for most members, but it is chaotic.

Secondly, I am assuming that you have read through the forum rules and guidelines (the ones that everyone agrees to before participating on the forum). It doesn't seem like you are honestly seeking to understand the truth of God (Tehillim/Psalms 119:142) here on the forum as it doesn't seem (correct me if I am wrong) that you are here to ask honest questions regarding a observant life in light of what you have been taught in Churchianity. From what I have read thus far, it seems that your deliberate goal here on the forum is to convince us all that a pursuant practice and faith is not the will of God and that we are in error, and the purpose of this forum is indeed in error. If that is the case, I would like to bring to attention the following forum rules and guidelines;

"7. We advocate Observance as part of our walk with Messiah Yeshua (for both Jew, and Gentile/Numbers 15:15-16), since He is our example and was Observant, along with the disciples (Matthew 5:16-19). This can be an area of great division with much misunderstanding (especially when it comes to Rav Sha'ul's (Rabbi Paul's writings). So, we must realize that we are all at different points in our walk, and that the Ruach (Spirit) of God will lead people to The Truth.

8. Here at Ahavat Elohim Messianic Discussion Forums the following is held to be true:

"Since Adonai is always the same, there are no ages of time or dispensations in which He works differently in principle. However, His Word declares an ongoing revelation, which accumulates throughout history. Dispensationalism calls biblical history “progressive revelation”, which implies that Adonai changes His principles as ages pass. We do not follow Dispensationalism. Our faith sees Adonai’s works as “cumulative revelation” to mankind. While Adonai’s principles remain constant, the revelation of Himself has been given out in pieces over time." - quote from MBI (Messianic Bureau International)

9. If you are a Christian that has been instructed that Our Heavenly Father's has been done away with, and you believe that it is not relevant to you, please feel free to ask questions and test the scriptures with us. To do this you must keep an open mind and not just post to prove Based Faith in Yeshua to be wrong. If your only goal is to draw others away from a Based Faith in Yeshua The Messiah, this forum is not for you.

Again, forgive me if I have misunderstood your intentions, and please correct me if I am wrong. But, if you have no intentions to keep in open mind to the possibility that Adonai's is the way that you should express your love to Him and you have no intention to explore the possibility that you are wrong about God's law, than as the forum rules describe, this forum is probably not the right place for you.

But, if you are teachable and are willing to reconsider your stance, we would love to further discuss these things with you. But, if you are set in your mind, what is the point? You simply have to read through this forum to see that we have already provided refutations for almost every objection you have already put forth. Should we continue to argue it until we are both blue in the face ;D I think not.

I appreciate our friendship, but if you are not here to honestly seek answers to the possibility of a pursuant life in Messiah, than our experience here will surely end in discord.

Please pray about this before responding,

Thank you dear friend,

Reuel

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

The following is how I believe Hebrew chapter 8 is to be understood...

"Heb 8:1 Here is the whole point of what we have been saying: we do have just such a cohen gadol (high priest) as has been described. And he does sit at the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens,
Heb 8:2 There he serves in the Holy Place, that is, in the true Tent of Meeting, the one erected not by human beings but by YHVH."

Firstly, we must understand that Yeshua's Priesthood is Heavenly and doesn't effect or change the Earthly priesthood. This is important context as we continue to read through this chapter. If God has changed the covenant of Levi for the future than Satan wins as God will be proved to be a liar and a God not capable of keeping His covenants (if this is true we should fear). You see, we must remember one of the most basic of interpretive methods, and that is context. We cannot read scripture from the writings of the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant) outside of it's intended context...and that pre-existing context is the TeNaKh. It states the following,

"Jer 33:16 When those days come, Y'hudah will be saved, Yerushalayim will live in safety, and the name given to her will be YHVH Tzidkenu [ADONAI our Righteousness]."

Context: Notice how the above is set in the future. This sets the tone for the rest of the passage...

Jer 33:17 For this is what YHVH says: "There will never be cut off from David a man to occupy the throne of the house of Isra'el.
Jer 33:18 Nor will there ever be cut off from the cohanim who are L'vi'im a man before me to offer burnt offerings, burn grain offerings and offer sacrifices every day."
Jer 33:19 This word of YHVH came to Yirmeyahu:
Jer 33:20 "Here is what YHVH says: 'If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that daytime and nighttime no longer come when they are supposed to,
Jer 33:21 then my covenant with my servant David also can be broken, so that he will not have a descendant to reign from his throne or L'vi'im who are cohanim to minister to me.
Jer 33:22 To the degree that the armies of heaven are past counting and the sand by the sea past measuring, I will increase the descendants of my servant David and the L'vi'im ministering to me.'"

This is necessary context that we should add to our understanding when reading Hebrew 8. In my view our passage in Yirmeyahu (Jer.) here is primary, and the passage in Hebrews is secondary when it comes to how we interpret scripture (precept upon precept, line upon line, ect). Therefore, we can either choose to reject the book of Hebrews (as many have done) or interpret it responsibly. Notice, how the whole crux of this issue is handled in the very next verse in Yirmeyahu...

"Jer 33:23 This word of YHVH came to Yirmeyahu:
Jer 33:24 "Haven't you noticed that these people are saying, 'YHVH has rejected the two families he chose'? Hence they despise my people and no longer look at them as a nation."

Again, keep in mind that the context is future, and now keep in mind what you are saying...You are actually fulfilling prophecy. One only needs to read to the end of the chapter to see whom stands in error. Nevertheless, let us continue in Hebrews chapter 8,

"Heb 8:3 For every cohen gadol is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so this cohen gadol too has to have something he can offer.
Heb 8:4 Now if he were on earth, he wouldn't be a cohen at all, since there already are cohanim offering the gifts required by the ."

Again, the passage is reinforcing that Yeshua wasn't a priest after the order of the Earthly sanctuary, but after the Heavenly sanctuary.

"Heb 8:5 But what they are serving is only a copy and shadow of the heavenly original; for when Moshe was about to erect the Tent, God warned him, "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern you were shown on the mountain."
Heb 8:6 But now the work Yeshua has been given to do is far superior to theirs, just as the covenant he mediates is better. For this covenant has been given as on the basis of better promises."

We are reminded here that the Beit HaMikdash (Temple) is a copy of the Heavenly reality and that because of this Yeshua's priesthood and ministry is superior to that of the Earthly Levi'im (Levites). And, I think that is obvious. But, please don't make the mistake of reading "superior" as "replace". That would be inconsistent with the , Prophets, and The Writings and would indeed call into question the validity of the book of Hebrews. I of course think the book of Hebrews is valid and that it only must be interpreted correctly. The covenant coming through Messiah Yeshua (what we call new) is an addition to the compound covenant of God...just as all the "new" covenants are. God works the same yesterday, today, and forever. So, it shouldn't surprise us to see that the mechanism of His covenants also work the same throughout history.

The new covenants always add better promises. But, they build upon the previous promises and conditions without diminishing the previous "older" covenants (or the covenant that proceeded that particular "new" covenant"). There are aspects of the past covenant(s) that have -not- been fulfilled to this day that Messiah Himself will have the pleasure of fulfilling at His coming and even after that. How can something be done away with if it hasn't even been fulfilled yet? That would seem to put God in a precarious position and it seems quite blasphemous to this writer for one to even remotely suggest. But, that is one of the many problems with Anti-nomian "Christianity". A Western Greek mindset may not quite grasp what I have stated here, but it is consistent with the overall context and with the rest of the scriptures.

"Heb 8:7 Indeed, if the first covenant had not given ground for faultfinding, there would have been no need for a second one.
Heb 8:8 For God does find fault with the people when he says, "'See! The days are coming,' says YHVH, 'when I will establish over the house of Isra'el and over the house of Y'hudah a new covenant."

Please let me draw your attention to the fault and where it lies. This will provide the context to help us understand what has actually been changed. First, we have the giving of another covenant because God found fault with His people...not with His covenant. So, what was the problem?? His people broke His covenant!...

"Heb 8:9 "'It will not be like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by their hand and led them forth out of the land of Egypt; because they, for their part, did not remain faithful to my covenant; so I, for my part, stopped concerning myself with them,' says YHVH."

So, if the problem was us all along, and the problem was not actually with the covenant itself...what needed to be changed...was it us or His covenant//Law? If you guessed US...you are thinking logically. Therefore, the following additional covenant amended the previous not to remove it but to empower it...Don't believe me? Let's continue to read;

"Heb 8:10 "'For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days,' says YHVH: 'I will put my in their minds and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people."

Let's stop there. Some that have anti-nomian (lawless) tendencies may want to interpret the above passage to mean that it was not the or God's actual laws (as we find in the first five books of the Bible) that was and is written on the heart of the believer, but that it is some sloppy agape law of love that has no real definition that effectively allows someone to actually live lawless while claiming to have God's law written on their heart. This of course is utter nonsense. Only those whose deeds are evil and those whom are running from God's light (Tehillim/Proverbs 6:23) would interpret it this way. The (or Law) written on one's heart is the same that a Jew reading Yirmeyahu (Jer.) during that time would understand it...the actual and Law of God as found in the actual word of God and not some made up law of love that allows one to don a shady cloak of lasciviousness (spiritually speaking). Oy vey! That type of doctrine is some of the most wicked doctrine I have ever heard. Indeed, it is the bulk of the doctrine taught by the false teachers perpetuating the end time Great Apostasy.

One should also remember that our passage in Hebrews here makes the "New Covenant" with the House of Yisrael and the House of Yehudah...not with the house of Goyim (Gentiles). I point this out because the Goyim must join the commonwealth of Yisrael (and it's covenants [Ephesians 2]) to even take hold of this New Covenant. And, this is consistent with the previous covenants being written upon their hearts. But, as we continue to read in Hebrews 8...

"Heb 8:11 "'None of them will teach his fellow-citizen or his brother, saying, "Know YHVH!" For all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest,
Heb 8:12 because I will be merciful toward their wickednesses and remember their sins no more.'"

Please note that the above passage has not taken place yet. Therefore, we have another aspect of the Brit Chadashah that has not been fulfilled yet, but will be in the future. What do the Prophets have to say about this. What is the context?

Isa 2:2 In the acharit-hayamim (end of days) the mountain of YHVH's house will be established as the most important mountain. It will be regarded more highly than the other hills, and all the Goyim (Gentiles) will stream there.
Isa 2:3 Many peoples will go and say, "Come, let's go up to the mountain of YHVH, to the house (Temple) of the God of Ya'akov! He will teach us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths." For out of Tziyon will go forth , the word of YHVH from Yerushalayim.".

Hebrews 8:11-12 states that all will know Adonai because His will go forth from Tziyon and this is qualified as being "the word of YHVH"...at the very least, this would include the first five books given of Moshe. Can I hear an amein! This flows perfectly with what we read about the Brit Chadashah (New Cov.) in Yechezk'el (Ezek.) 36:26-27...

"Eze 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you; I will take the stony heart out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 I will put my Spirit inside you and cause you to live by my laws, respect my rulings and obey them.

These laws are not some law of love that replaces the actual words that God Almighty has already spoken. I don't know how someone could even believe such drivel. Those whom do believe this have believed the lie of HaSatan and are certainly not walking and talking with God. That is for sure. In fact we see that something goes hand in hand with those whom bear the testimony of Yeshua The Messiah...

"Rev 12:17 The dragon was infuriated over the woman and went off to fight the rest of her children, those who obey God's commands and bear witness to Yeshua."

"Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are the ones keeping the commands of God, and the faith of Yeshua."

And, as we finally get to the end of chapter 8 of Hebrews and while keeping all of the above in mind we read our last few verses;

"Heb 8:13 By using the term, "new," he has made the first covenant "old"; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether."

Oh dear, it saddens me to see how much of Christianity has butchered the above verse to fit the condition of their hearts. Many whom have lawless hearts will gladly interpret the above to mean that God's bad old law has been vanquished by the Good new law (even though the writings of the New Covenant are based entirely on the TeNaKh - , Prophets, and Writings). But, never mind that 2Timothy 3:16-17 states, "2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be perfected, being fully furnished for every good work.". What scripture were they working from back then?? Common people!

Hebrews 8:13 is covenantal language that describe the adding of any one of the New Covenants as they were added throughout history. Remember, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever and operates according to the same standards when operating His covenants. The language found in 8:13 simply tell us (within context of the rest of scriptures) that status of past compound covenant has changed and is growing old. It is similar to the constitution of America. When we add covenants or make amendments we add to that constitution, but do not take away from it. But, the adding of the better promises and stipulations changes the status of the constitution and the previous status is now the older status. As the new promises and amendments are in the process of changing certain aspects of the commonwealth the past status and conditions of the constitution are growing old, indeed as the new amendments fully take effect the old status will completely disappear. But, remember the old status was simply the lack of the current covenant perks, promises, and enablements. But, with the addition of these things the previous constitution continues to stand strong. Could you imagine what would happen if each time the constitution was amended the people of the country thought this meant that they were free from the previous established laws...it would result in chaos! But, this is exactly what has happened in much of the Christian "Church". They have taught a chaotic spirituality and doctrine. But, this would be consistant with those whom have been listening to the Father of Lies as he only comes to steal and destroy.

In this thread the spiritual and the physical has been compared. Let us see what the scriptures truly teach about these two concepts...

"Rom 8:5 For the ones that are according to flesh mind the things of the flesh. And the ones according to Spirit mind the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace;
Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity towards God; for it is not being subjected to the Law of God, for neither can it be.
Rom 8:8 And those being in the flesh are not able to please God."

A warning to all those whom will not hear (with the intent to obey) the of Adonai...

"If a person will not listen to , even his prayer is an abomination." - Mishlei (Proverbs) 28:9

At this time this thread has reached it's end and a break is needed for all parties to meditate on and pray about the subjects at hand. Unless someone truly has something new to offer (in light of previous discussions), we will conclude here for the time being. If you do have some new insight that you would like to share, send me a personal message here on the forum and I will consider opening the thread for further discussion.

Shalom b'Yeshua,

Reuel

[Ruchamah]

Heb 8:13 By using the term, "new," he has made the first covenant "old"; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether.


Sadly, the word covenant is not in the text at all, tho everyione seems to want to translate it as there.

I do not believe the author is even remotely suggesting the covenant is old or ready to pass away: the author is speaking of THIS PRESENT AGE as being old and aging and about to pass away.

This view is confirmed in Chapter 9 when the author discusses the HOLY PLACE as the FIRST, and the MOST HOLY PLACE as the SECOND.

The HOLY PLACE, or the FIRST, is a parable of this PRESENT AGE, (vs 9:9). The MOST HOLY PLACE, or the SECOND is a picture of THE COMING GOOD THINGS,(vs 9:11) in the New Heavens new earth, not of THIS CREATION.

It seems that the writer of Hebrews is trying to get us to see that the TANAKH (EXTERNAL ) has standing as long as THIS TABERNACLE (this present age) is standing.
Upon the arrival of the New heavens and New earth, we will have a Re-Newed Covenant, not the EXTERNAL but now the INTERNAL .

We have been done a huge dis-service by the English translators, imo, causing us to utterly misunderstand all of Hebrews and come up with things like Dispensationalism and Replacement Theology.

Hope i didnt muddy it.....
Ruchamah

[jewishjediguy]

May 3, 2008 18:09:44 GMT -8 Ruchamah said:

Heb 8:13 By using the term, "new," he has made the first covenant "old"; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether.


Sadly, the word covenant is not in the text at all, tho everyione seems to want to translate it as there.

i can agree 100% with ya there.

I do not believe the author is even remotely suggesting the covenant is old or ready to pass away: the author is speaking of THIS PRESENT AGE as being old and aging and about to pass away.

unfortunately, i would have to disagree 100% with ya there.

Heb 8:13 In the saying, New, He has made the first old. And the thing being made old and growing aged is near disappearing.

in context, he is speaking about the Covenant. as it states previously:

But now He has gotten a more excellent ministry, also by so much as He is a Mediator of a better Covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first was faultless, place would not have been sought for a second. For finding fault, He said to them, "Behold, days are coming, says YHVH, that I will make with the house of Yis'rael and with the house of Y'hudah; a New Covenant...etc"
Iv'rim (Hebrews) 8:6-8

This view is confirmed in Chapter 9 when the author discusses the HOLY PLACE as the FIRST, and the MOST HOLY PLACE as the SECOND.

The HOLY PLACE, or the FIRST, is a parable of this PRESENT AGE, (vs 9:9). The MOST HOLY PLACE, or the SECOND is a picture of THE COMING GOOD THINGS,(vs 9:11) in the New Heavens new earth, not of THIS CREATION.

but where is this plainly written in chapter 8 or 9? that this is all a parable concerning the age or world? i can understand it as a parable, however i don't see it in its plain context. what i see is an explanation for why the New Covenant is being cut, and how it is being cut.

It seems that the writer of Hebrews is trying to get us to see that the TANAKH (EXTERNAL ) has standing as long as THIS TABERNACLE (this present age) is standing.
Upon the arrival of the New heavens and New earth, we will have a Re-Newed Covenant, not the EXTERNAL but now the INTERNAL .

We have been done a huge dis-service by the English translators, imo, causing us to utterly misunderstand all of Hebrews and come up with things like Dispensationalism and Replacement Theology.

Hope i didnt muddy it.....
Ruchamah

I have often heard of the Covenant as being "Renewed", however, it doesn't fit with the translation of the Hebrew from Yir'm'yahu (Jeremiah).

Yir'm'yahu 31:31-34 uses the phrase: B'rith Chadashah. however, if this were to be "Renewed" Covenant, then it wouldn't be B'rith Chadashah; it would be B'rith ha Chidushah, or simply B'rith Chidushah, which would be the proper sense in Hebrew.

if it was a Renewal of the Covenant, which Covenant? because the New or "Renewed" Covenant is not according to the Covenant which I made with their fathers in the day of My taking hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Mitz'rayim (Egypt); because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says YHVH. Heb 8:9

In Yeshua,
Yochanan

[Ruchamah]

Shalom Yochanon,

You raise great questions, and to be honest with you, i have the same ones. The english translation of Hebrews is just horrid, clouding what the simple language says.

I dont think u can seperate the covenant from the tabernacle it governs: the Tanakh governs THIS tabernacle, or this present age. The New covenant governs the PERFECT tablenacle, the AGE TO COME.

Regarding the Most Holy Place and the High Priest alone being allowed to enter it once per year:

Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost thus signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

This is a horrid translation, so maybe i can help clarify it:
The Ruach thus signifying that the way into the Holies (is) not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle is (has) standing, which is a parable of this present age, in which are offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not (alone) make him that did the service perfect as pretaining to the conscience:

Now it gets really weird at verse 11:

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

This verse is so odd sounding, no wonder we skip over it! We think we know what it means, but do we?
When u look at the Greek, this is how it comes out:
But Messiah having become high priest of coming good things, by a better and perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, not of this creation:

Yochanon, it SEEMS that just as Aaron was High Priest of His House on Earth, so Messiah is HP of the perfect Tabernacle, the new heavens and new earth, which is goverend by a new covenant (new or renewed, it is internally rather than externally, on tablets of heart rather than tablets of stone).

In discussing *ages*, I have read that there is OLAM HAZEH (this world), OLAM HABA (the coming age, mill?) and L'ATIYD LAVO (the prepared age, 8th day?). It seems (external) governs the first two, and (internal) governs the third.

In Hebrews 2, the writer says that what he is speaking of is the age to come:
Heb 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

Sadly, for the most part, Hebrews 9 is translated as PAST TENSE stuff...but i think that is an error and i have been struggling to untangle it for myself.

I sure hope i clarified a little bit where i was coming from!
Blessings,
Ruchamah

[yeshuafreak]

this is my cov't system:

www.messianicforum.proboards49.com/index.cgi?board=renewed&action=display&thread=254

if you read this you will get your interpretation. i belive that the palestinian cov't (youll know what that is when you read) was 'rewritten' and changed, replaced with a better, messianic cov't, or the b'rit chadashah. these are the laws spoken of here (law was a 1st cent term for 'covenant')

[Mark]

Then you do not believe that God is immutable.

[Mark]

Just a side editorial that some may wonder about. Reuel and Meville know each other outside of this forum. I'm sure that this discussion did not end between them here.