Is Torah Only for the Jews?

[Prodigal Girl]

OK folks, I have done some research on the whole circumcision issue, to attempt to understand it. I completely grossed out a relative(female) who is also a medical doctor, imagine that, asking so many questions.
There is definitely rabbinic precedence for saying that not being circumcised does not preclude being considered Jewish. For instance, if there are health reasons for not being circumcised, one would still be considered to be a Jew (as long as other "requirements" are met).
Apparently, there were/are differences in how much was actually cut off. The more extreme form was put into practice by certain (ultra-orthodox) groups so as to make it impossible to become "uncircumcised".
I have been unable to accertain if circumcision actually has any effect on sexual performance. The general rabbinic opinion is that it does; that it puts a damper on sexual prowess or something to that effect. That is one of the reasons given for circumcision. Again, I have no clue what the truth is concerning this. I also have been unable to accertain if the more extreme form of circumcision would relate to that.
There definitely was some discussion/difference of opinion in Jewish writings of the second temple period as to whether circumcision was to be required for gentiles coming to faith in the G-d of Israel.
One thing I would caution against, is quoting the scriptures about being circumcised of heart as support for not circumcising in the flesh. Circumcision of heart ALWAYS was considered important, and there always was the idea that one could be circumcised in flesh but NOT be considered to be "True Israel" because the heart was not circumcised.
I still have not figured out what Paul was actually saying, or for that matter, what the decision made in Acts concerning this was all about. I am still investigating. It would seem to be obedience to , to get circumcised, yet Paul and the Jerusalem council seemed to be saying either don't do it or don't teach others to do it. Which is very confusing to me. If it is one law for all, then it would imply that circumcision should also be part of that. One possibility is the view that I have heard in Messianic circles before, that non-Jews coming to faith in the G-d of Israel should not be pressured about circumcision and other laws(but with the understanding that later, they would get circumcised and learn to follow the law). Another possibility is that they just made the wrong decision, at the Jerusalem council; that they should never have said that non-Jews only had to obey those few laws.

[nasah]

Prodigal Girl,

In the decision of the Acts Jerusalem council, the Disciples made a decision, to unify the body of Gentile believers with the Jews who were taught that circumcision was what made one a Jew.

The Jews and Gentiles were greatly troubled by those arising saying they must be circumcised in order for them to be of covenant status.....

When the apostles said for those who were circumcised not to seek uncircumcision, and those that came in uncircumcised to remain that way, they were basically saying don't worry about it for now, come as you are and worry rather about being a Jew inwardly.

I do not believe they made a decision against being circumcised at all, but rather trying to keep people from thinking they could take on a ritual performance and then be done and in the covenant.

I believe that circumcision is up to the male believer, to undertake when he feels ready, and when he wants to live up to that command out of love for God rather than to be given a ticket to enter, just because he is, only to later be thrown out because he did not have the wedding garment on.

Shalom,
nasah

[Prodigal Girl]

Aug 7, 2008 7:59:05 GMT -8 nasah said:

Prodigal Girl,

In the decision of the Acts Jerusalem council, the Disciples made a decision, to unify the body of Gentile believers with the Jews who were taught that circumcision was what made one a Jew.

The Jews and Gentiles were greatly troubled by those arising saying they must be circumcised in order for them to be of covenant status.....

When the apostles said for those who were circumcised not to seek uncircumcision, and those that came in uncircumcised to remain that way, they were basically saying don't worry about it for now, come as you are and worry rather about being a Jew inwardly.

I do not believe they made a decision against being circumcised at all, but rather trying to keep people from thinking they could take on a ritual performance and then be done and in the covenant.

I believe that circumcision is up to the male believer, to undertake when he feels ready, and when he wants to live up to that command out of love for God rather than to be given a ticket to enter, just because he is, only to later be thrown out because he did not have the wedding garment on.

Shalom,
nasah

Nasah,
That is the way I am currently viewing it also, though I am open to considering other interpretations. It is difficult because this is not how my rabbi interprets it.

[Mark]

If is only for the Jews, then why did God judge Ninevah and send a Jewish prophet to teach them repentance?

[zionlion]

If is only for Jews, why were aliens permitted to keep it?
-observant aliens were still aliens even though they were welcomed by Elohim. They didn't magically become blood descendants of Jacob.

[David Ben Yosef]

The so-called "Noachide Laws" as a means of righteousness for gentiles, were not even formulated until the 2nd century. Jonah didn't preach any "Noachide Laws" to the inhabitants of Nineveh, because that doctrine didn't even exist in Israel yet. That didn't come until much later, during the compiling of the Talmud.

[liz3331]

I am in a pentecostal church, but I came to a conclusion that G-d will not tread his children different with different rules that makes Him not fare. So i start i observing the sabbath and studying G-D's law in order how to apply them in my life. And i find my self loving His law and experiences peace in my life. I see the as a road map in order to grow more mature, en a tool of exposing every sin in my life, so then i know were i need to repent of. But my church they thinks different they think we are free of the law and are allowed to eat pig, and don't need to keep the sabbath, etc, i think different about that. But there are scriptures what are not all clear to me , like ROM 14 and GALATIANS 3 and 4. I know I am going the direction I shut go, but I am trying to put everything in the correct order, and how to defend my self from every opposition with scriptures. Because more and more I separate my self from my church doctine and i know this can cost conflict. Please have anyone a exponation about ROM 14 and GALATIANS 3 and 4.

thank you

elizabeth

[ashedinahbatsaul]

BS'D
I believe that if the gentiles WANT to follow law, then g-d would certainly not be 'displeased'

[jimmie]

Rom. 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Sin is the transgression of the law and the whole world is guilty of sin before God and Jews do not constitute the whole world, it seems simple that the law applies to all not just the Jews. The nation of Isreal’s purpose was to bring all people to that understanding not to become self center and construct barriers to their entrance into God’s rest.

Matt. 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

[hamashiachagape]

Oct 18, 2007 19:14:00 GMT -8 Prodigal Girl said:

rory said:

A snippet from:
www.therefinersfire.org/lets_get_biblical.htm

We love our Christian brethren, but the time has come to put an end to the "Jesus nailed it to the cross" argument and get Biblical: "Jesus" had another Name while He walked this Earth: Yeshua. He nailed to the cross the requirement to kill an innocent animal to atone for our sins; nothing more, nothing less. Belief in Yeshua means salvation/eternal life. But that in no way negates the need for , God's original teachings. The Bible tells us that anyone who wants to follow the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is to be observant:

Numbers 15: 13 "'Everyone who is native-born must do these things in this way when he brings an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD. 14 For the generations to come, whenever an alien or anyone else living among you presents an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the LORD, he must do exactly as you do. 15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD: 16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you.'"

Some insist that " was only for the Jews", but as we can see from the above, that is not true. The "foreigners" include everyone who has chosen to believe in Yeshua! The Bible tells us God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8); that Yeshua is God Incarnate; and that He and His disciples were all observant, seventh day Sabbath and Feast-keeping, kosher Jews. The Bible also tells us that His original followers in the First Century were all observant, as well. So what supposedly happened to change that?

Jeremiah 31:32 tells us that YHWH made His "new covenant" with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah; He did not make a "new covenant" with the Gentiles because He did not have an "old covenant" with the Gentiles! He did, however, extend His grace and mercy to the Gentiles who, once they become believers in Yeshua the Jewish Messiah, automatically become part of "Israel"! And God told Israel: "I give you good instruction: Do not forsake my " (Proverbs 4:2).

Therefore, it's high time to set the record straight and let the world know that Jesus "nailed to the cross" not , but the "documented opinions of Man" - the man-made traditions and interpretations that had forced their way into the Word of God. Yeshua even said He came NOT to abolish but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17-20). "Fulfill" did not mean "put an end to"; but rather, to "establish" or "confirm"! is our only blueprint for moral behavior, so why would it have been abolished at the cross? That makes no sense! Rav Sha'ul (Apostle Paul) said the following which most Christians seem to overlook: Romans 3: 31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

I disagree that what was nailed to the cross was the commandments, teachings of men. Although that is a creative interpretation, I do not believe that following traditions per se or the commandments of men are what necessitated His death on the cross, but our sin, our breaking of HIS commandments. Yes, sometimes sin does involve following after WRONG teachings of men. But to say that all teachings and traditions are wrong, is just not accurate. It is those teachings which contradict the commandments which are at issue. The focus should always be on HIS commandments and our relationship to them. EVERYONE from EVERY culture has all kinds of teachings and traditions. They are not necessarily bad or evil of themselves. Only when they contradict HIS word. There is WAY too much overcriticism coming from the church, of any "Jewish" customs and traditions. Yet any "Christian" (in particular, American evangelical) oriented cultural customs and traditions are beyond reproach.

This may be an interesting thought, but I'd like some scriptural support for this.

[hamashiachagape]

Jan 20, 2010 4:41:42 GMT -8 Mark said:

If is only for the Jews, then why did God judge Ninevah and send a Jewish prophet to teach them repentance?

Let me also point out something else that was influential in my becoming a Messianic Jew. I used to be nondenominational.

In Apologetics we are taught to utilize 2 Timothy 3:16 in response to critics that the Bible no longer applies to today.

However, I saw this as undercutting the position that the no longer applies to today after careful investigation.

One, this statement was made to a Gentile...Timothy. He is being taught to follow the entire Bible. This statement was made by Paul.

Two, this letter was one of the last letters that Rav Shaul wrote.

Thus, in addition to Numbers 15:13-16, it is reconfirmed in giving scriptural support to the 's application to today in the Brit Hadashah. The sacrifices are the only things that could have seen to be changed, and in one way or another they seem to be returning with the 3rd temple, but in a different function.

[hamashiachagape]

Aug 2, 2008 14:41:48 GMT -8 Prodigal Girl said:

OK folks, I have done some research on the whole circumcision issue, to attempt to understand it. I completely grossed out a relative(female) who is also a medical doctor, imagine that, asking so many questions.
There is definitely rabbinic precedence for saying that not being circumcised does not preclude being considered Jewish. For instance, if there are health reasons for not being circumcised, one would still be considered to be a Jew (as long as other "requirements" are met).
Apparently, there were/are differences in how much was actually cut off. The more extreme form was put into practice by certain (ultra-orthodox) groups so as to make it impossible to become "uncircumcised".
I have been unable to accertain if circumcision actually has any effect on sexual performance. The general rabbinic opinion is that it does; that it puts a damper on sexual prowess or something to that effect. That is one of the reasons given for circumcision. Again, I have no clue what the truth is concerning this. I also have been unable to accertain if the more extreme form of circumcision would relate to that.
There definitely was some discussion/difference of opinion in Jewish writings of the second temple period as to whether circumcision was to be required for gentiles coming to faith in the G-d of Israel.
One thing I would caution against, is quoting the scriptures about being circumcised of heart as support for not circumcising in the flesh. Circumcision of heart ALWAYS was considered important, and there always was the idea that one could be circumcised in flesh but NOT be considered to be "True Israel" because the heart was not circumcised.
I still have not figured out what Paul was actually saying, or for that matter, what the decision made in Acts concerning this was all about. I am still investigating. It would seem to be obedience to , to get circumcised, yet Paul and the Jerusalem council seemed to be saying either don't do it or don't teach others to do it. Which is very confusing to me. If it is one law for all, then it would imply that circumcision should also be part of that. One possibility is the view that I have heard in Messianic circles before, that non-Jews coming to faith in the G-d of Israel should not be pressured about circumcision and other laws(but with the understanding that later, they would get circumcised and learn to follow the law). Another possibility is that they just made the wrong decision, at the Jerusalem council; that they should never have said that non-Jews only had to obey those few laws.

Nope..one needs to look at Acts 15:21. The issues you see as problematic are not as problematic as they first seem given closer investigation. Ritual and legalistic observance is mentioned by Rav Shaul as being unable to save somebody alone; the Mashiach must also be accepted.

People tend to try to separate Grace and . But I see them as intertwined. By God's grace, he gave us the so that we may live a holy and righteous life.

[yiska]

i won't get into t he long letter of what I think, but for teh most part, I think if you love G-d's laws and keeping his Shabbat holy, then Jews and gentiles are the same since we all are grafted from the tree of life.

Am I wrong?

I never thought that keeping the meant anything to me growing up because I never fully understood it as me being deaf/ HOh I was wet behind the ears and didn't get the message nor did I ask. Little did I know.

Since I have gone to synagogue I have learn more so from there than I have in my 30 years as a Christian. Now I am not dissing the Christians but they are missing the the whole KEY that they actually believe that they do not have to go by the simply because they think you have to be a Jew. And for the most part, in my humble opinion, I think they don't want to be wrong in knowing that the laws of G-d does apply to the Jews and gentiles.

just my humble opinion.

You are welcome to give me pointers to help me out what I am missing.

[Yedidyah]

Mar 14, 2013 9:15:19 GMT -8 yiska said:

i won't get into t he long letter of what I think, but for teh most part, I think if you love G-d's laws and keeping his Shabbat holy, then Jews and gentiles are the same since we all are grafted from the tree of life.

Am I wrong?

I never thought that keeping the meant anything to me growing up because I never fully understood it as me being deaf/ HOh I was wet behind the ears and didn't get the message nor did I ask. Little did I know.

Since I have gone to synagogue I have learn more so from there than I have in my 30 years as a Christian. Now I am not dissing the Christians but they are missing the the whole KEY that they actually believe that they do not have to go by the simply because they think you have to be a Jew. And for the most part, in my humble opinion, I think they don't want to be wrong in knowing that the laws of G-d does apply to the Jews and gentiles.

just my humble opinion.

You are welcome to give me pointers to help me out what I am missing.

I think if we look into history we can see that the Jews acted and even looked different than the other nations. (Gentile meanes "of the nations") so it does not correctly fit for a child grafted into the tree. The Gentiles also had their own look and way they acted, their own laws which they followed. The early church was built in the Jewish Synagogues and homes. The Gentiles were transformed by the learning of and repentance of their old ways since they had now abandoned such ways they were no longer Gentiles. That is what Sha'ul (Paul) was talking about in
(Romans 10:12
12 That means that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - ADONAI is the same for everyone, rich toward everyone who calls on him, ) That the Gentiles that came to Messiah were not on the outside looking in but grafted into the family of Messiah. If they were learning in the Synagogues and surrounding themselves with the Jewish people, living among them I think it wouldn't have taken long before the nations would have trouble picking them out from the rest of the Jews. Ruth is a great example of being grafted in. She abandoned everything to become a fellow "Jew" so to say. She was no longer a Gentile for she was grafted into Israel. The Gentiles who died to their old selves and were reborn into the way of Messiah (Which was Jewish) were no longer Gentiles they were grafted into the promise, and what an amazing promise that is

[yiska]

Mar 14, 2013 9:43:24 GMT -8 Yedidyah said:

Mar 14, 2013 9:15:19 GMT -8 yiska said:

i won't get into t he long letter of what I think, but for teh most part, I think if you love G-d's laws and keeping his Shabbat holy, then Jews and gentiles are the same since we all are grafted from the tree of life.

Am I wrong?

I never thought that keeping the meant anything to me growing up because I never fully understood it as me being deaf/ HOh I was wet behind the ears and didn't get the message nor did I ask. Little did I know.

Since I have gone to synagogue I have learn more so from there than I have in my 30 years as a Christian. Now I am not dissing the Christians but they are missing the the whole KEY that they actually believe that they do not have to go by the simply because they think you have to be a Jew. And for the most part, in my humble opinion, I think they don't want to be wrong in knowing that the laws of G-d does apply to the Jews and gentiles.

just my humble opinion.

You are welcome to give me pointers to help me out what I am missing.

I think if we look into history we can see that the Jews acted and even looked different than the other nations. (Gentile meanes "of the nations") so it does not correctly fit for a child grafted into the tree. The Gentiles also had their own look and way they acted, their own laws which they followed. The early church was built in the Jewish Synagogues and homes. The Gentiles were transformed by the learning of and repentance of their old ways since they had now abandoned such ways they were no longer Gentiles. That is what Sha'ul (Paul) was talking about in
(Romans 10:12
12 That means that there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - ADONAI is the same for everyone, rich toward everyone who calls on him, ) That the Gentiles that came to Messiah were not on the outside looking in but grafted into the family of Messiah. If they were learning in the Synagogues and surrounding themselves with the Jewish people, living among them I think it wouldn't have taken long before the nations would have trouble picking them out from the rest of the Jews. Ruth is a great example of being grafted in. She abandoned everything to become a fellow "Jew" so to say. She was no longer a Gentile for she was grafted into Israel. The Gentiles who died to their old selves and were reborn into the way of Messiah (Which was Jewish) were no longer Gentiles they were grafted into the promise, and what an amazing promise that is

Thank you for opening my eyes and ears to see and hear.