MalkyEl -

For my response to your post, please see this thread on the debate forum: http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=22;action=display;threadid=5624

Take care,
Chesed

[You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments,]

Shalom MalkyEl -

1)  New wine in old wineskins has nothing to do with education.  It is about the work of the Holy Spirit [Gal 5, Rom
8, John 3

That may be your interpretation, but the interpretation offered by the author of the article fits the context better, in my humble opinion.

2) New wine are the teachings of Jesus - His Law, the Law of Christ which redefines and clarifies the Law of Moses.

Based on my understanding of the article, you and the author agree on this point.

Not because it is obsolete, but because Isra'el broke the covenant.  Therefore a new law [covenant] was given in
Jesus Christ. Torah was the schoolmaster until Jesus.  Jesus' law was based on, founded in Torah, but was rewritten in the
heart, mind, and soul of the believer - Torah written on the heart - the Law of Love.

3)  The Law [Torah] was fulfilled in Jesus death and resurrection.  Christ is the end of the law [Mosaic Law].  The law is fulfilled in love.  The fruit of the Spirit is the end result of being led by the Spirit = the Law of Christ written on the
heart.

Jer. 31:31-
31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, " I will put My
law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Who is the New Covenant made with? Israel.

Notice in the passage above that the Law of Moses is included in the New Covenant, it is the only Law God could be referring to that He will write on their (our) hearts. The difference between the Old Covenant Law and the New Covenant is that in the New Covenant God promises us that His Law will be kept perfectly, as apposed to the Old Covenant where God predicts Israel's breaking of the Law.

So, who authored the Torah of Moses?
I'm sure you and I both agree that God authored the Torah of Moses. And Jesus being One with God is also considered the
author of the Torah. And in that Torah, God gave Israel guidelines for judging who is a Prophet sent by God:

 "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ' Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 " You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. 5 "But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the LORD your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk."

It doesn't make sense that God would give the Torah to Israel to judge who really is a prophet of God and then send the
Messiah to tell them the Law is changed. And even Jesus says that He did not come to abolish the Torah (Matt. 5:17) and He also says, (Mt 5:19) "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So, bottom line: Jesus didn't come to abolish or change the Law, He said so Himself. What He did was to show us by example how the Law was meant to be kept. And those who love Jesus will keep His commandments (contained in the Law that He authored):

Joh 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Joh 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."

Joh 15:10 "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.

1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.
 
The work of the Holy Spirit is to inspire us to keep the Law as it applies to our lives:

Romans 8:4-9 "so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

4)  The old wineskin is Torah.

As I said before, that is your interpretation, but the author of the article makes more sense to me:

Old wine skin = someone already taught Torah as interpreted by the rabbis and sages.

New wine = The Torah as Jesus taught it, which differed from the teachings of the Sages.


**********************************************

Correct me if I am wrong, but Yeshua wrote the Book [Bible]- and He needs the Talmud to define His teachings???

Well, you and I agree that Yeshua wrote the book (see above).

No, He doesn't need the Talmud to define His teachings. However since He is speaking to the Pharisees (mostly), and the Pharisees were studied in the teachings of the Talmud, Yeshua uses the Talmud to teach them and many times chastise them. And to fully understand the context of what Yeshua is saying, I don't think it's wrong to use the Talmud as a reference only.

It would be the same if Yeshua came to English professors who taught Shakesphere. And Yeshua used the writings of Shakesphere to teach them. To fully understand the meaning of Yeshua's teaching, you could turn to the writings of Shakesphere and study the Elizabethan way of speaking, idioms, etc. to determine the context.

I do understand your concern. I know of many people who get caught up in Talmudic teachings and Rabbinic interpretation, that they focus too much on being accepted by the Jewish community rather than being accepted by God. I'm sure you have seen this too and that is why you are cautioning me. But don't worry, you and I agree probably more than you think we do.

PS:  Oral Torah is not the inspired Word of God.

Amen.

Take care,
Chesed

MalkyEl -

Since this is the Bible Study forum, I will discuss your post on the debate forum.

However, I would like to take issue with what you say here:

6)  I noticed that the Talmud was quoted as giving "interpretation" to this passage.  The Talmud is not inspired.  It is a rabbinic interpretation of the OT.  No one reading the Talmud comes to Messiah.  Salvation is not within its pages.  You cannot take the new wine of the NT [the Holy Spirit inspired teachings and atoning work of Messiah] and pour them into the old wineskins [Talmud] - it will burst wide open.

You are right to caution anyone to place too much importance in the Talmud. It is not inspired, just like other commentaries of the Bible.

However, Jesus references the Talmud many times when speaking to the learned Pharisees. And to fully understand what Jesus is saying, I see nothing wrong to turn to the Talmud for context.

Here are some instances where Jesus specifically references the Talmud, taken from an article by Tim Hegg, "Can We Speak of "Law" in the New Testament in Monolithic Terms":


Matt. 9:14, 15 The argument of Jesus, in which He defends the manner in which His disciples fast, is based upon a recognized halakha, that it is improper to fast in the presense of bridegroom. This is not found in the written Torah. Cp. b. Sukkah 25b; t. Ber. 2.10.

Matt. 12:5 The teaching or halakha which states that the priests break the Sabbath but are innocent is not found in the written Torah. Cp. b. Shabbat 132b. For other instances where the Sabbath may be profaned, cp. m. Ned. 3.11 (circumcision); m.Pesah 6/1-2;t. Pesah 4.13 (Passover sacrifices).

Matt. 15:1 Pharisees are inquiring about the disciples of Jesus: why do they transgress the traditions of the elders by not washing their hands according to halakha before eating? Jesus rebukes them, citing also their use of Korban to "hide" their wealth from aging parents who needed their support. Cf. m. Hag. 2.5; b.Sabb. 13b-14a; y. Sabb. 1.3d; b. Yoma 87a.

Matt. 15:36 There is nothing in the written Torah about giving thanks before eating. Saying the berakhah before eating is part of the oral Torah.

Matt. 22:40 Jesus quotes the Shema and Lev. 19:18, stating that upon these two precepts hang the Law and Prophets. The terminology of the Law and Prophets hanging from something is derived from oral Torah, cp. m. Hagiga 1.8; b. Ber. 63a.

Matt. 26:20 Reclining is the position of eating at the Pesach meal, but is not prescribed in the written Torah. Cf. m. Pesachim 10:1. Reclining is an halakhic requirement before one can eat the Passover.

Lk 6:9 Cp.m.Shabbat 22.5. The issues of healing (see parallel in Matt 12:10) on the Sabbath are part of the oral Torah, to which Jesus no doubt refers.

Lk. 11:44 The written Torah declares that a person is unclean from a corpse if he touches it or is in the same room with it (Nu. 19:11-15). The Pharisees extended the communication of impurity to any object overshadowed by a corpse (or part of a corpse) or any object whose shadow contacts a corpse or tomb (m. oholot 16.1,2). The oral Torah further elaborates the means by which impurity is transmitted from a corpse to an object. It appears that Jesus accpepted at least some of this oral Torah as grounds for His illustration of the Pharisees as concealed tombs that rendered those who overshadowed them unclean.

****

I don't think there is anything wrong with using the Talmud or any other Bible commentary to help us understand the Scriptures -- as long as we use scripture and Messiah's example as a guide for what we accept.
 
Take care,
Chesed
 

[My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples." 8 The Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, "Yet {others} I will gather to them, to those {already} gathered."]

To Big D, (part II)

Prior to God setting the Gentiles aside at the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11...

Setting aside Gentiles? Don't you know that a mixed multitude of Gentiles left Egypt with Israel and received the Law with
them?

Ex 12:49 " The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you."

Le 18:26 'But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, {neither} the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you

Le 24:22 'There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your
God.' "

Nu 15:29 'You shall have one law for him who does {anything} unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them.

Nu 15:30 'But the person who does {anything} defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.

God's later added a condition to that covenant in that Abram, and all those males that followed him, had to be
circumcised or be "cut off from his people" (see Gen 17:9-14.) That circumcision made a distinction between a Jew and
Gentile. That distinction was made by God.

Circumcision wasn't a condition it was a seal or sign of the covenant, as Paul states in the verse I quoted above in
Romans 4. I have heard circumcision and Sabbath as signs of the covenants being compared to a wedding ring one wears to signify the covenant of Marriage.

Circumcision as a distinction between Jew and Gentile? Ex 12:48 "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the
Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a
native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.

After the Law was given to Moses, that Gentile, and all others, had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws of Moses.

God raised up Moses and gave to him  His instructions in righteousness for the children of Israel. Those instruction can be found in the Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws of Moses. The Gentiles were never under the Law unless the wanted to serve the true and living God. Then they had to become Jews (proselytes) and place themselves under those Laws.

Wrong. See the verses from the Law of Moses above about the same commandment given to Israel is the same for the sojourner.

The practice of a ritual conversion for a gentile to become a Jew is not found in Torah at all, but came about through
Rabbinic Law. The following passage says nothing about a gentile who has to become a Jew to worship God:

Isaiah 56:3 3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from His
people... 6 Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath And holds fast My covenant; 7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples." 8 The Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, "Yet {others} I will gather to them, to those {already} gathered."

If Gentiles who wanted to serve God had to become Jews, then why does this passage say that God's house will be called a House of Prayer for all the nations/peoples (Hebrew:goyim = gentiles)? If that was the case wouldn't it more correctly read, "... a House of prayer for (only) the nation of Israel"?

I don't think it is at all coincidental that God mentions gathering the dispersed of Israel in the Isaiah 56 passage just
after He talks about Gentiles choosing to join themselves to Him, and says that He will gather them to those already
gathered. It's a really beautiful picture and I feel so honored and blessed to be a part of this picture through Messiah's shed blood!

I wonder if Messiah had Is. 56:8 in mind when He said, "(Joh 10:16) There are other sheep which belong to me that are not in this sheep pen. I must bring them, too; they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock with one shepherd."

God had set the nation of Israel aside (Romans 11:7-12), temporarily (vs 25)

I object to your wording here, BigD. I don't believe God set Israel aside:

(Romans 11)"1 I ask, then, has God rejected His people? Absolutely not! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin."

Paul uses himself as an example that God has not rejected Israel. Do you consider Paul part of Israel or the Church?

Obviously Paul considered himself part of Israel.  
 
Paul continues in Romans 11: "17 Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, though a wild olive branch, were grafted in among them, and have come to share in the rich root of the cultivated olive tree, 18 do not brag that you are better than those branches. But if you do brag--you do not sustain the root, but the root sustains you. 19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 True enough; they were broken off by unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. 22 Therefore, consider God's kindness and severity: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you--if you remain in His kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, because God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from your native wild olive, and against nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these--the natural branches--be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 So that you will not be conceited, brothers, I do not want you to be unaware of this secret: a partial hardening has come to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."

Some of the branches were broken off and we gentiles (the wild olive branches) are grafted in among them. Israel is
experiencing a "partial hardening." This doesn't sound like they were set aside to me.

Also, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (LAW) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers,

So here you reference Eph. 2:14-16:
14 "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by
abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity."

If you are saying that this verse shows Messiah destroyed and broke down the Law (of Moses), then how do you explain what

Jesus says in Matt. 5:17 that He did not come to abolish the Law? If it is not the Law of Moses that this verse is referring
to, then what is Paul talking about here in Ephesians?

The Greek word for "dividing wall" in this passage is "fragmos." This word was used in the 1st century to identify the oral
Torah (Rabbinic Law) as a wall or fence around the written Torah (Law of Moses) and Pharisees as "builders of the Wall." (The "Dividing Wall" in Ephesians 2:14 by Tim Hegg).

Rabbinic Law was very strict in separating Jews and Gentiles. This was mainly as an attempt to keep the Jewish people from
eating non-kosher foods and from partaking in pagan idol worship. Consider how Peter says that it was against the law for a Jew to associate with a gentile (Acts 10:28) but there is no such prohibition in the Law of Moses.

It makes sense and does not contradict scripture to interpret Ephesians 2:14, that the Law/commandments/ordinances described are those in Rabbinic Law regarding Jews not associating with Gentiles. We see this issue many times in NT scripture.
**********************************************

Well BigD, I'm sure I have given you enough to keep you busy for a little while. I know that I probably overwhelmed you with
much to respond to -- with both my posts and Tim's article -- it was easy to miss this question, but I would still like to know:

If all the covenants are made with ONLY Israel, then what covenant are you a part of?

Thank you,
Chesed

[accurately handling the word of truth.]

BigD -

I would like to first thank you for taking the time to read the article and respond to it. I know that takes a lot of time to do, and now I will take the time to respond to you.

As a dispensationalist, I do not believe "that God required different standards of obedience in different eras or
dispensations." I know of no dispensationalists that do. As a dispensationalist I do believe that salvation/justification has
ALWAYS been by FAITH. FAITH in believing and/or doing what God required at that point in time of human history.

If you believe that salvation/justification has always been by grace through faith, then you and I agree.

I'm confused by what you say above and how that disagrees with Tim Hegg's article when it reads "that God required different standards of obedience in different eras or dispensations."

BigD responds:
2Timothy2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,  RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH."

The above, in my humble opinion, strongly indicates that there are divisions in the Bible. Did the atributes of God change over the ages? NO, they are the same today as they were yesterday, and will still be the same tomarrow. However, has God dealt differently with mankind throughout the ages? Yes.

I would like to take a closer look at this this phrase in 2 Tim. 2:15b "RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH."

Understanding this verse correctly is depends on how one understands the Greek word "orthotomeo," which is translated here "rightly dividing." This word occurs only here in the NT, and is a word for a (tent making) tool or measurer. A long time ago a measurer was also called a "divider." Here is the interpretation of the word in the concordance

(http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1098841860-6567.html)--

1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways

a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right

2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly

Here is the same verse in another translation: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not
need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.(NAS)

So I compared the different popular translations to see which ones said, "rightly handling..." versus "rightly dividing..."

Here's what I came up with:

The tranlsations that rendered 2 Tim. 2:15 as "... rightly handling..." (or something to this affect) are as follows:
New/American Standard Version, The Holman Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation, New/Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, The Douay-Rheims Bible, New Century Version, God's Word Translation, World English Bible, The Bible in Basic English, Weymouth New Testament, New International Version. A total of 12 translations.

The translations that rendered 2 Tim. 2:15 as "... rightly dividing..." are as follows: New/King James Version, Third Millenium, Young's Literal Translation. A total of 3.

So statistically speaking: 4 out of 5 bible translators translate "orthotomeo" as "rightly handling." 9 out of 10 dentists prefer Crest toothpaste... jk.  

I believe that dividing between the Church and Israel wrongly handles the Word of Truth.
 

I have never read were Adam and Eve, by faith, were saved/justified by offering a sacrifice to God. I have never read were  Able, by faith, had to believe God and build an ark in order to be saved/justified. I have never read where Noah had to, by faith, believe God and count the stars in heaven to be saved/justified. I have never read where Abram/Abraham, by faith, had to do the deeds/works of the Laws of Moses, to be saved/justified.

Yes, Abraham wasn't saved/justified by doing the works of the Law, but God said that Abraham did obey them: Ge 26:5 "...because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws." Yet, Abraham was saved by His faith.  

Paul, when he was illustrating the salvation we have through faith refers to the OT:

"1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. ... Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,"(Romans 4).

Abraham was justified -- declared righteous -- by faith and his works (i.e. circumcision) were a seal of that righteousness.
I believe that salvation in relationship to works is the same today:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." (Eph. 2:8-11)

Titus 2:11-14
11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly
desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

The pattern is the same regarding the quote Paul uses in Romans 4 from the OT, and the verses I quoted here from the NT: salvation comes first by grace through faith, and good works happen as a result of one's salvation, the Torah contains the good works that were prepared beforehand (Eph. 2:11).

I have never read where the children of Israel, in the Old Testament, Gospels and first part of Acts, had to, by faith, place their faith and trust in the Cross work of Christ for their salvation/justification.

Deut. 18:15 " The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 "This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.' 17 " The LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. 18 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 ' It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require {it} of him."

Peter in Acts references this passage while speaking of Jesus the Messiah to the Jewish People: "22 "Moses said, "THE LORD
GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you. 23 `And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:22-23)

Tim Hegg continues:
A bi-product of such dispensational theology is the erroneous pillar which marks separation and distinction between Israel
and the Church. Fuller writes:

. . . the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity.3

BigD responds:
As I have stated previoulsy, dispensationalsim is not a denomination or doctrine. It is by "rightly dividing the word of
thuth"  that leads one to know that there is a marked distinction between Israel and the Chruch, the Body of Christ.

I don't think that Tim Hegg is saying that dispensationalism is a denomination or doctrine, but a hermeneutic. Even you said
that it is the way in which you interpret the Scriptures. You and Tim in this case are saying the same thing.

BigD -

Thank you for taking the time to respond to Tim Heggs article. I will take the time responding to you this evening.

Take care,
Chesed

Tim -

Your quote from Mishna Rosh Hashana, showing that some festivals days were kept as a 2 day festival for Jews outside of Jerusalem does not explain what you said in your intial post. Taking a one day festival and celebrating it for 2 days would not have affected the week days, it did not make the 7th day fall on a Thursday, Friday, etc. as you said earlier.

BEP -

You are right that we should be praying and worshiping 24/7. Jesus is our spiritual rest and in Him we can rest from trying to earn our salvation by ourselves. This rest is 24/7.

But the Sabbath day is a physical rest that God asks us not to work, to focus on Him, our families and our communities.

Hebrews 4:9 "So there remains a Sabbath-keeping* for God's people. "

*The word here in the Greek is sabbatismos used only here in the NT. In the Septuagint, the related Greek word "sabbatizein" was coined to translate the Hebrew verb shabbat when it means "to observe the Sabbath." (From David Stern's Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 673.)

This is from a previous post of mine about the meaning of the word fulfill:

It all hinges upon how one defines the word fulfill in this context. The greek word used in 17, plerosai, means literally to fill; the word fulfilled in verse 18 is actually a different Greek word. Some possible meanings for fulfill in 17 could be: "to accomplish, to carry into effect, bring to realisation, to perform." Here is how the verse would read with fulfill being understood this way: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to accomplish, to carry into effect, bring to realisation, to perform." It makes perfect sense.

Some interpret the word fulfill in Matt. 5:17 as "to put an end to." Here is what verse 17 would read according to this understanding: " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to put an end to (the law)." This sounds contradictory.

The same Greek word for fulfill used in Matt. 5:17, is also used in Matt. 3:15 (the baptism of Jesus) "But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness."

This verse is evidence that the first interpretation I gave of the word fulfill for Matt. 5:17 is the correct one. To believe the contrary, would lead one to come to the same conclusions as 5:17 applied to 3:15 would mean that Jesus did away with baptism by becoming baptised, or that He "put an end to righteousness." Of course we know this is not true. I think we can all agree this is correct way to understand 3:15: "for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill (accomplish, to carry into effect, bring to realisation, to perform) all righteousness."

The same Greek word used in Matt. 5:17, Matt. 3:15 is also used in the Gospels when Jesus fulfills a Prophecy about Him in the Prophets: Matt. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet..."

BEP -

Thank you for not deleting my post that you had disagreements with. I'm sorry that I didn't switch my responses to the debate forum earlier.

I do want to make it clear that I don't believe any law keeping will accomplish one's salvation. I've been working hard to show from scripture that the Lord never gave the Law as a means for Israel to accomplish their own salvation. The Law was given for sanctification, not salvation.

I believe that the only way one is saved is by grace through faith, and that the only way we can be acceptable to God is by the shed blood of Messiah.

I'm sure you and I both agree that God wants those who belong to Him to behave a certain way. You would say that a Christian should keep the Law of Messiah. I believe the Law of Messiah and the Law God gave to Moses is the same. The Messiah kept the Law perfectly, and showed us by example how the Law was intended to be kept.

Take care BEP,
Chesed

All religious Jewish communities all over the world keep the same day as a Sabbath, whether in France, Israel, Russia, US, Uganda, etc. Changes in the Gregorian calendar don't affect the Jewish calendar.

You still have not shown documentation that the Jews added in 4-5 days and didn't count them. Could you produce your source please?

I'm not a 7th Day Adventist or a member of the World Wide Church of God. But they seem to be still pretty aggressive about the Sabbath.

I am a Christian who is learning the Jewish roots of my faith and I belong to a Torah community. Many churches are now keeping the Sabbath realizing that Sunday worship is based on centuries of syncretism and flawed hermeneutics.

[I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins.]

BigD -

Before I respond to your post, I want you to know that even though I disagree with you, I still consider you a brother in Messiah (and a fellow member of Israel   ).

I refuse to debate and an article written by someone else, other then the one who originally wrote it.  I have not read all of the ariticle and don't intend to read the rest, as I reject it in total.

Hey... that's not fair! I had to read your postings of commentaries! C'mon...  

The author of the article I posted is the Pastor of my congregation, if you would like to respond I could send it to him for you.

Where do you plan to spend eternity?

By the shed blood of Messiah, I will be with the Lord.

Are you a dispensationalist, or a dispensationalist of a sort?

I am not a dispensationalist at all.

If you no longer sacrifice animals to cover your sins, you are a dispensationalists.

Animal sacrifice never had the power to atone for sin (Hebrews 10:4-5). They only served as a reminder for sin (Hebrews 10:3).

Even in the OT, it says that only God is the one, not sacrifices, that takes away sin:

Isaiah 43
22 "Yet you have not called on Me, O Jacob; But you have become weary of Me, O Israel. 23 "You have not brought to Me the sheep of your burnt offerings, Nor have you honored Me with your sacrifices. I have not burdened you with offerings, Nor wearied you with incense. 24 "You have bought Me not sweet cane with money, Nor have you filled Me with the fat of your sacrifices; Rather you have burdened Me with your sins, You have wearied Me with your iniquities. 25 "I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins.

We know from reading about Ezekiel's Temple in Ezekiel, that even the Messiah and Levitical Priests will perform animal sacrifices in that future Temple.

If you do not adhere to the Sabbath Day Laws of the Old Testament, then you are a dispensationalists. If you do not believe that circumcision is required today, then you are a dispensationalist.

I believe that Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law (Matt. 5:17) and He didn't abolish the Law by "fulfilling" it. So the other Laws in the Law of Moses are still applicable, but because there is no Temple in Jerusalem and we do not live in the land of Israel, we are not able to keep them all. But we keep those we are able to keep here in the US. Our son is circumcised. We keep the Sabbath on the 7th day and the Biblical Festivals. We eat only Biblically clean food... etc. And we do so with Messiah's example as our guide.

Jesus told His disciples to preach "the gospel of the kingdom" to the Jews only. Jesus Himself said "I am not sent,but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24) What did he preach? "The gospel of the kingdom" (Matthew 4:23).

It appears to me that Jesus and the 12 preached a different message to their listeners then what Paul preached. If they preached the same thing, then Paul is a liar.

If Paul is at odds with Jesus, then I'm going to go with Jesus' message. But it seems to me that Jesus and Paul were preaching the same message, and Paul is not a liar:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Matt 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations (Hebrew: goyim = gentiles), baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I commanded you."

The mystery of the Gospel is the fact that the gentiles are included in the nation of Israel, and are also recipients of the Promises given to Israel. This is the context of Eph. 2 & 3.

19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints (Israel of God) and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Eph. 2:19-22).

So gentiles are part of God's household, Israel, and we share the same "house laws," the Torah (Law), that God gave to Israel as an act of grace. Just like the Law I give to my children to follow, I give to them out of grace and my concern for them to be well. I would have the same laws for all of my children.

My pastor have a perfect analogy of this in his own household. He and his wife have 2 natural born children and 2 adopted children. Does he have special laws for his natural born children while he tells his adopted children to do whatever they want? No. He has the same house laws for all of his children.

Here is a thread where I posted from a book, "The Mystery of the Gospel" by Daniel Lancaster. He illustrates that the Mystery of the Gospel is the inclusion of the gentiles into Israel: http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=5004

Well, I think this post is long enough for now. There is still more I'd like to say, but I'll save it until later.

I would still like you to answer this question I had from my previous post:

If all the covenants are made with ONLY Israel, then what covenant are you a part of?

Take care,
Chesed

[fixed]

You show a total ignorance of both Biblical law, history and logic.

You shouldn't resort to ad hominem attacks because you can't answer my questions.

Historically, the Jews in some number have always kept the Sabbath on the seventh day. And they have been scrupulous at keeping their calendar.

the reforms of Hillal didn't come until 4 centuries after Christ.

The link I posted didn't say anything about Hillel reforming the calendar, it said he fixed it.

The Jews adjusted the callendar several different ways during their history, and this included adding extra days without counting them, thus there could be two first day's of the week in a row several times per year.

Could you please cite your source?

And as to the argument that somehow our Saturday corresponds to the seventh day of the time of Christ is parochial on your part, as there are other countries where Sunday is the seventh day of the week and Monday the first.

Again as I said before, if you can't trust the Jewish people to keep the Sabbath on the right day, then how can you trust the Scriptures they preserved?

[so that the lunar calendar realigns with the solar years.]

I do keep the Sabbath on the 7th day, the day God sanctified in Genesis 2.

My point in the verse was that if the Jews of Jesus day were keeping the wrong day, then when Jesus kept the Sabbath, he would have done it on the right day, which shows that Biblically, the Sabbath is a certain day (the 7th) and the Jews were keeping the correct day.

Secondly, the link I gave doesn't say the words lunar/solar, but it is implied-

In the fourth century, Hillel II established a fixed calendar based on mathematical and astronomical calculations. This calendar, still in use, standardized the length of months and the addition of months over the course of a 19 year cycle, so that the lunar calendar realigns with the solar years. Adar II is added in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th and 19th years of the cycle. The current cycle began in Jewish year 5758 (the year that began October 2, 1997).

If it is kept aligned with the solar year, it is also a solar calendar. Hillel just fixed the calendar (made it so they could map it out ahead of time), he didn't change the way they did it.  The real difference was that before Hillel, there was a Sanhedrin, and they would observe the new moon to declare the beginning of the month, and with Hillel, they just used the known lunar cycle to fix the days as 29 or 30.
The bottom line is the months still line up with the cycle of the moon, and the solar year (same seasons).

I don't see how the verse I quoted gives any support to your position, it shows the Messiah honered the Shabbat on the 7th day confirming that the Jews had it on the right day.

We meet on the Seventh day of the week like our Messiah the Lord of the Sabbath.  Even in our culture, we still call Sunday the 1st day of the week, and so do the scriptures. In fact, in the new testament Greek, they number the days "the first day from the Sabbath", "the second day from the Sabbath" etc.  A pity that isn't indicated in the English.

How does the commandment to keep the 7th day holy point to the 1st day of the week?

Chesed

BigD -

The crux of the issue here is dispensationalism. I am not a dispensationalist, and this is were our disagreement lies. I would like you to invite you to another thread where I posted an article about dispensationalism if you would like to debate it. Here's the link: http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=22;action=display;threadid=5552

As far as what you have posted here, let me share some thoughts:

From the previous post you said:

God's ultimate purpose in giving the Law was to make men righteous.

And from your last post:

Having said that the Jews were seeking to establish their own righteousness by keeping the Law, and were not subject to the righteousness of God

These two statements seem to conflict. If the Law was given to make men righteous, then it would not have been wrong for Jews to keep the Law to establish their own righteousness.
If the Law could impart righteousness, then why in the world would God need to send His Son to die on the cross?

To back up what I'm saying here, I'll repost the verse you quoted from Galatians:

21 Is the law then against the promise of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law

you are taking Scripture that belongs to the nation of Israel and applying them to members of the Body of Christ.

Guilty as charged!  
Eph. 2 12, 19 -- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

Eph. 3:6 the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel

Romans 11:16 If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy.

One household, One body, One lump, One root. We gentiles joined Israel, God's holy nation when we came to faith in Messiah. Israel and the church are one. God has only one bride, no mistresses and He is not a polygamist.

However, the Law was an "eternal covenant" that God made with the nation of Israel. Today, the Body of Christ is not under the Law, but when Christ returns and establishes His Kingdom upon the earth, the Law will again be in effect. In fact, upon the return of Christ, God will make a "new covenant" with Israel and in that covenant the Law will be written upon their heart (see Jeremiah 31:31-34.) This new covenant (testament) is mentioned in Matthew 26:28 and referenced to in Hebrews 8:6-13.

If all the covenants are made with ONLY Israel, then what covenant are you a part of?

In the kingdom age the 12 Apolstles will be sitting upon 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel. In order for there to be judges, there must be laws to judge by.

So if the Law is abolished by Messiah's death, and Messiah's death was once and for all, I would think the Law would be abolished forever without a need for it to come back in any other "dispensation." Of course, I don't believe the Law was abolished at all (Matt. 5:17).

Take care,
Chesed

Tim-

I think the 'thumbs down' rating was in regards to the inaccuracy of the info you presented in your first post.

The Jewish calendar is lunar/solar.  They never add single days in, they add in a leap month (Adar II) about 7 times in 19 years so that the festivals always fall in the same season, otherwise Passover would not be in spring every year, but would rotate around the calendar, just like the Muslim holiday ramadan. If you want it from the horses mouth-
http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm

The month being added doesn't change the Sabbath cycle since they still number the days 1-7.

If you still are skeptical, just take Jesus word for it.  His custom was to go to the synagogue every Sabbath-

Lu 4:16 - And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read.

If the Jew's had it wrong, the synagogue would have been empty....

Not to mention, if the Jewish people can't be trusted with the Sabbath, then can we really trust the Scripture they preserved for us?

Chesed