|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 2, 2007 7:45:36 GMT -8
I have started this as its own thread, as it seemed to be getting lost on the "What is a Jew" thread. I have been trying to figure out why there is a such a distinction between to the two entities. We have the "commonwealth of Israel" which is clearly laid out in scripture. It is spoken of in the promises to the Patriarchs, and further established in Ephesians 2. When one reads Eph 2 it is impossible in the clear language to consider that Gentiles are grafted into anything else but the "commonwealth". However, there is another entity called the "Church", and this entity operates in a completely different way. The "commonwealth" has as its governing Laws, the  . The "Church" on the other hand does not recognize these Laws as being valid, and thus operates without this particular set of Laws. The "Church" also does not accept that they are part of the "commonwealth" and subject to its Laws, but believe that they are the rightful entity established by G-d. There cannot be two entities established by G-d according to Ephesians 2. It clearly states that Gentiles who were aliens and without the promises and the covenants, and foreigners to the "commonwealth" have been brought near by the blood of Messiah, and made heirs and fellow citizens. It is clear that when someone becomes an heir that they inherit something, and in our example, they inherit the promises and covenants. If they become fellow citizens as this context implies, then they it is citizens of the commonwealth. To become a citizen, and further a fellow citizen, implies that one is subject to the Laws of that government. What is the Law of the government? It is the . I raise these questions, because I see a great struggle taking place between those in our movement who believe in One Law for all, and those even within this movement that believe the is for the Jews, and should not be forced upon the Gentiles. On the one hand, if according the typical scriptures quoted, and the addition of Ephesians 2, all who come to the "commonwealth" are to be observant, then what does this say of a completely different entity called the "Church". Are they simply part of the "commonwealth" and not aware of it? Can one exist in the "commonwealth" and be ignorant of its Laws? Are there then two distinct entities that are in opposition to each other based on their understanding of the scriptures. If the "Church" is operating under a separate government structure, with different Laws, how do we reconcile them being part of the "commonwealth". If this is the case, then what are we to make of the millions in the church that flat out reject the notion of observance for Gentiles. They ignore what Eph 2 says on the subject. Are we to just say that somehow they are lost? My wife and I were discussing this earlier. If observance is required of Jews, then what of the Jews in the church? If Gentiles are only supposed to start with Acts 15 as an entry point, and then continue in learning until full observance, what is the penalty for their disobedience? I am interested in hearing everyone's perspectives on this very controversial subject. Shalom, Yitzchak |
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 2, 2007 7:57:28 GMT -8
I would say they are because scripture supports that there part of the commonwealth. I believe one can exist in the commonwealth and be ignorant of it's Law as it is happening now. But they are ignorant on what the commonwealth is. They believe the commonwealth is not Israel but is 'Christ'. The same as the Olive Tree metaphor. What is the consequence of existing in the commonwealth and ignorant? How do we help Christians better understand that the commonwealth is Israel? I mean do they have a 'claim' to the Israel of today? Remember there wasn't 'churches' in the first century. What was the only places of worship? It is important to remember that those Gentiles were live animal eating, idol worshipping Pagans and not former Christians converting to a Hebraic expression of faith. They had little knowledge or preconceptions about God to bring with them. That is not true today. Most Messianics are Gentiles and former christians of various flavors. Good question. God willed it for whatever reason. It is interesting to think of Paul and his frustration in his generation of the first century at the fact that Jews had the scriptures and the expectation of Messiah, and yet did not accept it that Yeshua was the one they were waiting for, and they missed it. It did not fit their expectation of the age. It is a huge flip-flop today in that some of us here are frustrated at the gentiles in having the scriptures and blind to the life of law, and missing it. It does not fit their expectations of this age. Marc |
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 2, 2007 11:20:38 GMT -8
What about the fact that they do not accept the fact that they are part of the commonwealth? In a commonwealth where there is a transgression of Law, there is penalty. If you break a law here, and try to tell the judge that you were not aware that this was a law, do you think they would let you go without punishment? Can one truly be a citizen of a commonwealth and be ignorant, or is it that they do not accept that the Law is the Law of the commonwealth? If one is governed by a law other than the law of the commonwealth, how do they still remain citizens of the commonwealth? I would not agree with this. They believe that the "Church" is the "commonwealth". This is why I brought this subject up. There would be no problem with the "Church" considering themselves the commonwealth, if they were in fact subjecting themselves to the biblical formula for the commonwealth. They do not do this. They out of hand reject the biblical concept of the commonwealth, and have replaced it with a Hellenistic version established by the ECF (early church fathers). That is the question that I am asking. What is the consequence of existing, and ignoring. Further, what is the consequence of existing in it, and outright rejecting the Laws that govern it. I would imagine that most here believe that the is for all people. If that is the case, is there not consequence for those who reject it? That is a good question. I have found that most in the Messianic movement have no desire to actively teach the church. If they are in error, are we correct for allowing them to remain that way. If someone in our own community were in error we would deal with it. No, the claim to Israel can only be made by those who are physically descended. Exactly. There were no churches, and the Messianic community existed as Jewish until things started shifting around 95-100CE. I believe our faith was hijacked, and de-Judaized by the Gentile majority that were coming to faith in Messiah. So, are we to accept that this was G-d's will, or the error of man? However, those pagans were coming to faith and fellowshipping in synagogues until the dates I listed above. Things began to shift, but there were those even in the early churches who were discipled by John who still maintained the Saturday Sabbath, and the Moedim. We are living in a time that is much like the early Messianic believing community. I can't reconcile that G-d would will something like this. One of the groups has to be wrong. I think it is interesting that this error is perpetuated still today. When reading the scriptures we see evidence of thousands coming to faith in one day. We see the elders excited about the thousands of the Jews who were coming to faith and zealous for the . This is where I see the difference. Rabbinic Judaism established at Yavneh made the break with Messianic Judaism. The final straw for the Rabbi's came with the Messianic's who would not stand with them during the Bar Kochba revolt. They couldn't, as they would not have accepted, as Rabbi Akiva did, that Bar Kochba was Messiah. So, first we have Messianic Judaism who up until this time was clearly a sect of Judaism. Then we have the end of the Jewish oversight of the believing community after John goes to be with the L-rd. As a result, Gentile leadership entered the community, and Hadrian's victory included a decree that no Jew was to enter Jerusalem for 100 years. This essentially allowed the Gentile leadership to establish their own entity, which in no way represents the biblical commonwealth established by G-d, under the government of . I am more concerned that so many who claim to follow and love G-d are convinced that the commonwealth spoken of does not include them. They do not see themselves as having to be part of the commonwealth subject to G-d's Law, which is the . What they in fact believe is that you and I should instead cleave to something called the "Church" which they believe is ruled by the Law of Christ. In claiming this, they divorce Yeshua from His role as G-d made manifest in the flesh. They divorce Him from being the made flesh, and they divorce Him from being the giver of the . This is the only way they can reconcile their existence. I am very concerned about this, and wonder if we are correct in beating around the bush with our brothers and sisters in the L-rd. Shalom, Yitzchak |
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 2, 2007 11:34:40 GMT -8
Then again what are the consequences for Jews rejecting Messiah? I'm not defending anybody but we need to look at the big pitcure too. Why isn't it possible that one can be ignorant? It's the people teaching and preaching that will held accountable. The ones that are 'annointed' and have taken the Word and have twisted it around. What about the Jews who are zealous for the and reject Messiah? Marc |
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 2, 2007 11:41:38 GMT -8
Actually I will agree and disagree. Yeshua is not the made flesh but is the embodiment of the , big difference. If we are to help our christian brothers this would be a mistake to say that the was made flesh. Yeshua embodied the , yes. Not: In the beginning was the , and the was with God, and the was God. And the was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Marc |
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 2, 2007 12:07:12 GMT -8
Yitzchak I think it would be a better discussion to see how we can help our christian brothers and sisters that they are grafted into Israel and are not aliens and strangers to the covenants of promise.
In fact we are one in Messiah!
Eph 2:14-18
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.
18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
This is a key verse I believe.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Aug 2, 2007 12:08:38 GMT -8
This leads to a fascinating dichotomy. On the one hand, you appear to have members of a commonwealth who do not know they are members, and therefore do not follow it's laws. On the other hand you have a law that states that if it is violated then the violators are to be removed from the commonwealth.
I just hope that the Mashiakh returns quickly so He can explain it all.
Shalom,
Nachshon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 2, 2007 12:18:29 GMT -8
This leads to a fascinating dichotomy. On the one hand, you appear to have members of a commonwealth who do not know they are members, and therefore do not follow it's laws. On the other hand you have a law that states that if it is violated then the violators are to be removed from the commonwealth. I just hope that the Mashiakh returns quickly so He can explain it all. Shalom, Nachshon I do believe our concept of being removed from the commonwealth needs to be addressed. I want to spend eternity with the Master and eat at the banquet table for eternity, doesn't everyone here? Just because someone won't be apart of that commonwealth doesn't mean that they are going to 'fry' for eternity. This is what christianity is missing on. They believe I'm 'going to heaven' and that's all that matters. That might be true but we will be rewarded. And I want some of those rewards. I don't want just the bare minimum. Yeshua says there will be least and great in the Kingdom of Heaven. Marc |
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Aug 2, 2007 12:23:44 GMT -8
Then again, Yitzkhaq has already questioned the concept of a bare minimum. Is it possible? I'm thinking not. It's a journey, no matter where you started, you should be walking in the path of observance, becoming more and more observant all the time. Then we have the question of what is the nature of Hell? It's purpose? It's final result? And the same of Heaven. Personally, I don't think that we'll ever go to the Heavens. I think we'll sleep until the resurrection. (I'm not going to fuss if I don't, but that's what I think. lol.) So must one be in the commonwealth to be redeemed? What effect does redemption have on one's eternal fate? Shalom, nachshon |
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Aug 2, 2007 12:38:31 GMT -8
Then again, Yitzkhaq has already questioned the concept of a bare minimum. Is it possible? I'm thinking not. It's a journey, no matter where you started, you should be walking in the path of observance, becoming more and more observant all the time. Then we have the question of what is the nature of Hell? It's purpose? It's final result? And the same of Heaven. Personally, I don't think that we'll ever go to the Heavens. I think we'll sleep until the resurrection. (I'm not going to fuss if I don't, but that's what I think. lol.) So must one be in the commonwealth to be redeemed? What effect does redemption have on one's eternal fate? Shalom, nachshon We will all sleep until the resurrection. But what are you telling christians? That if they don't keep they won't have eternal life? Are we implying that one cannot be "saved" unless he is observant? Marc |
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Aug 2, 2007 17:53:13 GMT -8
I really think that a lot of the problem with the church is that the members are quite biblically illiterate. They almost totally rely on spoon feeding from the pastor. They take whatever is fed to them. They are also so busy running around that they can't take the one day given to rest, focus on G-d, study and THINK! So they act totally shocked when anything that is not the same old church interpretation is presented. Or they immediately level charges of legalism. Like you can't bring up anything contrary to the politically correct church line or you are right off the bat seen as being holier-than-thou and judgmental. Lately I am thinking the best thing is to just live your life, talk to any that are genuinely interested, but I am not so sure that I should be a part of a church any more. All that arguing and gets old after awhile. Plus it's no fun to get kicked out repeatedly. When you join a church or do volunteer work in one, you are in effect entering into a contract with them. Something to think about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 2, 2007 19:19:56 GMT -8
No offense, but that is not what the thread is about.
Shalom,
Yitzchak
|
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 2, 2007 19:22:16 GMT -8
Actually I will agree and disagree. Yeshua is not the made flesh but is the embodiment of the , big difference. If we are to help our christian brothers this would be a mistake to say that the was made flesh. Yeshua embodied the , yes. Not: In the beginning was the , and the was with God, and the was God. And the was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Marc Marc, I appreciate your thoughts here, however, I am really interested in keeping the thread on topic. Further, as I believe that Yeshua is the Chochma of G-d in the flesh, then it is not difficult for me to say that He is the made flesh. He is the very wisdom and instruction of G-d come in the flesh. Shalom, Yitzchak |
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 2, 2007 19:26:07 GMT -8
Yitzchak I think it would be a better discussion to see how we can help our christian brothers and sisters that they are grafted into Israel and are not aliens and strangers to the covenants of promise. In fact we are one in Messiah! Marc, Nobody is saying that they are aliens. What is being said is that they reject the idea of being part of the commonwealth. My whole ministry is dedicated to teaching Gentiles this fact. The problem is that they think it is One New Christian Man. That is a great verse, but the whole of Eph 2 says so much more, and is the foundation of the commonwealth that they reject. I know you are zealous as I am to see this change, but the fact it that it is what it is right now, and I simply am looking to discuss these distinctions. Shalom, Yitzchak |
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Aug 2, 2007 19:34:28 GMT -8
Nobody is telling them any such thing. We all know that observance does not save. However, when one comes to faith, they are required to observe. Unless one believes that there is a distinction between Jew and Gentile. However, Eph 2 makes it pretty clear that Gentiles are now heirs and fellow citizens. If this is the case, as my original argument states, they are subject to the laws of the commonwealth. I don't think anyone is saying that either, but we also cannot say that once someone comes to faith that they should be able to outright reject the Laws of the commonwealth. You say people might be ignorant, Ok. What about the person that you explain it to, and they still reject it. Are you saying that the only reason to observe is to gain a greater reward? That those who outright reject the Laws of the commonwealth are saved, but they won't have as great a reward? What is the point of observance then, and how does this line up with G-d's word about following all of His commandments? Marc, also keep in mind that this is a challenging subject, and we are just kicking things back and forth. Shalom, Yitzchak |
|
. The "Church" on the other hand does not recognize these Laws as being valid, and thus operates without this particular set of Laws. The "Church" also does not accept that they are part of the "commonwealth" and subject to its Laws, but believe that they are the rightful entity established by G-d.
