Posted on 09/30/2005 9:26:35 AM PDT by HarleyD
He who would understand the prophets had better begin with Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, where he will find that the Church is one in the Old Testament and New, and the New Testament Church is the fulfillment of all prophecy, the very last phase of God's redemptive work on earth.
He will discover in Galatians who the true Israel is, to whom the promises are made and that there is no other Israel, and no further fulfillment of prophecy.
The problem of the Galatian believers was the conspiracy to impose upon them Jewish interpretations of prophecy, and to claim over them a Jewish priority or privilege. Paul repulses this conspiracy with unparalleled severity.
On this question it was "Paul contra mundum" (Paul against the world) as later it was to be, on another vital question, "Athanasius contra mundum." Even Peter came under his lash- "I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed" (Gal. 2:1 1). Great men were temporarily swept away by the Jewish pretensions to perpetual privilege and priority-- "Even Bamabas was carried away with their dissimulation" (Gal. 2:13).
Here Paul placed his foot, the last man on earth to stand between Judaistic heresy and the safety of the church: "To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal. 2:5).
In our day the same Jewish heresies have well-nigh crushed the theology of the evangelical churches and destroyed effective preaching of the Word. The error has taken different forms in our time, but springs from the same Judaistic root whose fundamental ground is that Jewish privilege and priority are perpetual and that the New Testament Church at best is only a makeshift arrangement of providence to tide over the time until the resources of a baffled and well-nigh impotent Godhead are assembled in sufficient force to compel at last a Jewish solution of the problem of redemption.
A glance at any average missionary magazine dedicated to Jewish evangelization will clearly show this. Sayings of present Jewish leaders are eagerly quoted in justification of 2,000 years of Jewish unbelief, as showing that the Jewish expectation of a Messianic kingdom on earth, with restoration of temple, sacrifices, and priesthood, is a true interpretation of prophecy, whereas it was because John the Baptist and Christ did not proclaim such a kingdom of earthly and visible Jewish glory and privilege that the one was betrayed to Herod and the other was crucified by Pilate.
Let the martyrdom of John and the crucifixion of the Savior stand for ever as the final answer to that interpretation of prophecy which displaces the church, relegates the gospel, and establishes for "Israel after the flesh" an earthly empire and a national economy falsely regarded as "the kingdom of Heaven."
The fact that some (but by no means all) earlier Reformed theologians and expositors have given some countenance to the error is neither here nor there; for to a man, they all lived before that final dispensational arrangement of prophecy which has turned error into a heresy.
With happy lack of consistency, the earlier theologians held their post-millennial teachings alongside a truly spiritual interpretation of prophecy, not perceiving that the two were mutually exclusive. Their hearers at least got the benefit of both worlds even though one had to be proved false by the other.
Today, we are not permitted that luxury. The theory has become sinister and subversive through its elaboration into a succession of "ages" to which belong certain well-defined segments of Holy Scripture, all combining to exclude "the church" from all but a fragment of the Divine Word. The Jewish theory predominates. A variety of second comings and last judgments has been invented. The abolition of the gospel has been proclaimed with great enthusiasm for it is fundamental to pre-millennialism that another gospel known as "the gospel of the kingdom" will take the place of the gospel of grace when "the church" is safety removed out of the way.
Paul has a word for those who proclaim "another gospel," or who even proclaim there will ever be another-"Let him be accursed ... though he be an angel from Heaven" (Gal. 1:8).
This perversion of Holy Scripture, now so destructively rife, is significantly at the root of all the modem "cults" which have sprung out of evangelicalism in the last 15O years, all proclaiming "another gospel" which is invariably a thinly concealed doctrine of "works" presented in more orthodox circles under the well-sounding title"Gospel of the Kingdom."
This title occurs very blessedly v in the New Testament, of course, but nowhere is it separable from the gospel "kingdom" which is neither here nor there, neither in Jerusalem, nor Samaria, nor Rome, but is "within you" (Luke 17:20-21). The "Gospel of the Kingdom" as described by our pre-millennialist is suspiciously like that which the sect known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" proclaims.
The inconsistency of former (but otherwise sound) theologians who pursued the millennialist fantasy is testified by our dispensationalists today who indignantly strike from the chapter headings of the Authorized Version of the Bible any reference to "the church" found in those headings throughout the Old Testament prophets.
We are on common ground therefore in acknowledging that the millennialism of the older theologians was inconsistent with modem dispensationalism or even with more moderate post-millennialism. These men cannot be quoted as experts on prophetical interpretation, but we have every ground for asserting that if they had lived after the invention of the dispensational heresy, they would have fled in dismay from their millennial house and cried havoc!
That Mr. Spurgeon did not appear to perceive this, can only be attributed to the fact that he lived too near the onset of the new error and was too engrossed (rightly so.) with the challenge of the new Bible criticism, to perceive the other "downgrade" which after his death became a landslide, and in two generations overwhelmed the evangelical testimony and destroyed theology and divinity, leaving evangelicalism powerless and without nerve or sinew to meet the challenge of world-wide atheism and Satanic unloosing.
We have begun by stating that the key to prophetic understanding of the Old Testament promises lies in the epistle to the Galatians, an epistle specially written to defend the church against all judaizing errors and interpretations.
The Galatian church was the Most Gentile of all the churches of the New Testament, as the name suggests. The inhabitants of that province in Asia Minor were a segment of the great Gaelic-Gautic-Celtic race from which the English-speaking peoples take most of their blood. It is sad to see that the Judaic-dispensational heresy has found only too congenial ground in this race, as it did in their Asiatic brethren in the days of Paul the apostle. It seems that our race is peculiarly prone to Casting away its great privileges and placing its mind in pawn to Judaistic doctrines. "O foolish Galatians! Who hath bewitched you" (Gal. 3:1).
In Paul's day men came from Judea to Galatia teaching that God had set aside neither the Jewish nation nor Jewish privilege, and unless the Gentiles became as Jews they could not be saved. They even insisted that Gentiles become circumcised as Jews. Against this Paul thundered,"I testify again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law, Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:3-4).
It is useless for our friends to tell us that this is not their error, for their interpretations require that in their so-called millennial age Gentiles must be circumcised according to the laws of Ezekiel's "temple." Hence our Savior Christ, supposedly reigning in person in Jerusalem, must preside over the subversion of His own gospel, the undoing of His work of redemption on the Cross and the dismantling of that kingdom of grace and truth which was the sole purpose of His coming into the world. In other words, the "Second Coming" according to the dispensational scheme will undo the whole purpose of the First Coming, and the Law will supplant the gospel.
Those who reject the true spiritual interpretation of Ezekiel 44:6-9 must teach that "the stranger" (that is, the Gentile) is to be excluded from God's sanctuary unless he is circumcised. This passage occurs in that portion of Ezekiel in which the New Testament temple is described but which our friends take to mean an actual temple restoration in Jerusalem during the so-called millennial reign of Christ on earth. As they insist that Ezekiel's temple is to be literally constructed they cannot escape the conclusion that circumcision is to be reestablished in their millennium, on a far more extensive scale than ever before; Gentiles must be circumcised as well as Jews if they are to have access to divine worship.
And who is now the heretic~we who plead for a spiritual and gospel interpretation of prophecy, or our friends who reestablish circumcision, the temple, the sacrifice, the Levitical priesthood, and abolish the church and the gospel, and put Moses in the place of Christ'? When we say that the epistle to the Galatians was written to destroy this Judiastic error, we do not overstate the truth, as we shall now attempt to prove.
The third and fourth chapters of Galatians are crucial to the interpretation of prophecy. Three things are shown therein: (1) The Church is one continuing body in the Old Testament and the New Testament. (2) The New Testament Church is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy concerning Israel (3) Therefore, prophecy concerning the promised kingdom is to be understood in spiritual, not in natural terms .
In the first chapter of Galatians, Paul proves his competence to speak with authority showing that the gospel which he preached and from which the Galatians were in danger of being subverted, was received by him as a direct and specific revelation from God, by- passing all human means, so that his apostleship was not derived from the Jerusalem apostolate with which he had only the flimsiest contact. It was three years after his conversion before he visited Jerusalem, and even then he lived with Peter for only fifteen days, seeing no other apostle save James (the relative of the Lord). His apostleship came direct from Heaven and his knowledge of the gospel from the same exalted source.
He was the man who (whether in spirit or body, he could not say) had been caught up to Heaven and in a personal interview with the glorified Redeemer received that inner knowledge of the divine wisdom in the plan of redemption that exceeded what he was permitted to teach or write (2 Cor.12).
In chap. 2 he records his visit to the great council of the church at Jerusalem called to deal with the Judaistic dispute-a dispute satisfactorily settled in favor of Gentile liberty under the gospel: a liberty unhindered by those Jewish observances which continued amongst the early Jewish believers during the appointed 40 years of Jewish probation terminating with the abolition of the temple, the Mosaic code, the priesthood, sacrifices and the synagogue connection in the Roman war of A. D. 70. In this account of the evangelical council at Jerusalem under the superintendence of the apostle James (Acts 15), the position of the church in relation to the Mosaic Law is clinched by an appeal to the verdict of the prophets themselves. Amos is being quoted as representative of all the, prophets (note the use of the plural)-Acts 15:15. That Quotation governs the right use of all prophecies related thereto, in reference to thee kingdom which Christ came to establish at His first coming, and shows that the kingdom is spiritual and not Jewish, of Heaven and not of earth, and that the rebuilding of David's house has been fulfilled in the perpetual reign of Christ, beginning with the resurrection and the ascension into Heaven.
Though Paul does not recapitulate the history of this great council, he records this result affecting the Gentiles. It was established that Gentile salvation outside the law and outside the Jewish camp was valid, scriptural and eternally binding, though (as Paul declares to his Galatian friends) it would not have mattered to him if the council had gone against him~."God accepteth no man's person" (Gal. 2:6).
Later on Peter came to Antioch and because of fear of the opinion of judaizing emissaries from James at Jerusalem, compromised with the synagogue faction and separated himself from the Gentiles. Poor Peter! The same Peter who denied his Lord still denies him despite the artificial theories of conference men who declare that Peter was a different man after Pentecost than he was before.
What grandeur in Paul's argument! The final answer to the judaizing heresy is that the Cross of Christ has abolished the earthly and temporal Jewish economy and set up in its place an economy of the Spirit which transcends the national, the carnal and the external. "I through the law am dead to the law that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live..." (Gal. 2:19-20).
No Break Between Old Testament and New Testament
There follows the Pauline analysis of the nature and history of the true church, as contained in chapters 3 and 4, The first great conclusion Paul presents to the Galatians is that the only true children of Abraham, the heirs to the Abrahamic covenant, blessing and promise, are true believers, whether Jew or Gentile: "Know ye therefore that they which be of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7).
There can be no appeal from this fundamental statement. In one sentence Paul destroys the entire dispensational, pre-millennial and post-millennial edifice. It is foundational to all three systems that Jewish privilege and a special Jewish future must be maintained on the basis that the Abrahamic covenant was exclusive to the natural (i.e. Jewish) seed of Abraham.
But Paul shows in these two chapters that the "seed of Abraham" is Christ, and that they who are Christ's (and no one else) are "Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise"; that this "seed" abolishes all distinction of birth or privilege, for "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for all are one in Christ Jesus" (See Gal. 3:16,2819). Moreover, the promise (of redemption in Christ took -precedence over the law by 430 years - the time lapse between Abraham and Moses. The Law itself, with its apparatus of temple, priest and sacrifice, was only added "because of transgression" to bridge the gap till Christ came~Gal. 3:17-19.
How say our literalists therefore that the temple and Levitical priesthood and sacrifice, are to be restored in the "Millennium"? If they were only established as a discipline to hold iniquity in check until gospel times, who will re-establish them save at the cost of recalling the sin and transgression which they were fitted only to restrain? And who now is the heretic?
Paul goes further and shows by the nature and history of the true church that no break has occurred between the Old Testament and New Testament Church. The Church of the New Testament is the legitimate successor of the church of the Old Testament.
Few chapters of Scripture have been so maltreated and distorted as the third chapter of Galatians. Evangelical expositors have sought to show from the word: "The Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," that the Holy Spirit uses the Law in evangelical conver sion to drive us through conviction of sin into the arms of Christ. Now whatever experimental truth there may be in this, it is not the subject of Paul's argument. The Galatians were never under "the schoolmaster." The "schoolmaster" is the regime of the Law over Old Testament Israel to preserve the nation in its function as the Church of God in the Old Testament till the "fullness of times" when Christ came at His first advent~"Before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed" (v.23).
This can only mean that the church was under legal restraints and administration till the time of gospel faith, that is, till the time when the fulfillment of the promise in Christ should release the people of God from all earthly and legal restraints and set them free without priest, sacrifice, temple, washings, outward observances or any such "rudiments of the world," to serve God in the spirit.
Christ said to the woman of Samaria: "Neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, shall men worship the Father, but the hour is coming and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth..." (John 4:21-24). In these words Christ abolishes temple, priesthood, sacrifice, circumcision and the entire apparatus of the Mosaic Covenant. Though for another 40 years of probation these "rudiments" were permitted to continue (though without legal enforcement) among pious Jews still attached to the nation and the synagogue, the judgment of the Roman war brought all to an end.
Among Gentile believers no such regulations and requirements were to be tolerated. The attempt to impose them was subversive to the gospel itself~the belief so current now among sincere Christians that the "rudiments" of the Mosaic code will actually, after 2,000 years, be reimposed not only on the Jew but on the Gentile also, is a heresy which baffles credence.
The thunders of the Galatian epistle notwithstanding, this subversive doctrine has obtained a stranglehold on theological thought and under the form of "dispensationalism" has vindicated 2,000 years of Jewish unbelief. It must be repelled and repudiated with the utmost vigor if preaching and exposition of the Word of God is to be restored to the church, and in this exercise the Epistle to the Galatians is crucial.
"But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a "schoolmaster" (v.25). The "coming" of faith in the apostle's argument denotes the passage of the church from the Mosaic to the New Testament economy. It is not an individual experience of the sinner coming to the Savior, but a moment in history when the regime of law gave way to the regime of faith, and the "schoolmaster" (the apparatus of the law summarized under the term "circumcision") handed over his office to Christ, and the church passed from its minority" to its "majority."
The conclusion of this chapter (vv. 26-29) is the charter of the New Testament Church and the ground of her invincible claim to be the lawful successor of Abraham, the true Israel, the true circumcision (not in the flesh but in the spirit), the inheritor of the promises and privileges and hope of Old Testament Israel. Hence-"If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise" (v.29). This glorious sentence winds up the Old Covenant, abolishes the law, the temple, and circumcision, terminates the mission of the Jewish nation, ends their exclusive rights and privileges, and provides the key to the understanding of the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets of the Old Testament.
This one sentence is the death-knell of that dispensational heresy which has filled the Church with the rubbish of a dismantled legalism and aims to reimpose in an age yet to come all those temporalities and restrictions which Christ died once and for all to abolish. The subtle doctrine that the gospel of Christ's free grace is going to give away to an imagined millennium of reimposed Jewish privileges, is reinforced by the teaching that there will be in that "golden age" another "gospel" preached, the so-called "gospel of the kingdom" which, whatever way we look at it, becomes a gospel of works and not of grace.
We beg our readers to consider that every false cult or sect which has sprung from the evangelical body in the last century and a half, is dispensational in nature and carries to its logical conclusion this Jewish and rabbinical principle of a gospel of works. It is proclaimed by the "Jehovah's Witnesses" in their significantly named "Kingdom Halls," by Christadelphians and Adventists, and by the newly developed cult launched by Mr. Herbert Armstrong, a financial wizard who claims to be the only man or organization on earth to be proclaiming the truth, and therefore entitled to all the legalistic "tithes" of the Lord's people. Aptly he has been called, "Mr. Ten Percent."
These outrageous impositions are evangelical in their origin and are only variations of that dispensationalism which began in the early 19th century, became standardized by Dr. C. I. Scofield in his "reference Bible" and has ever since dominated the evangelical scene. We cannot proclaim too strongly the dangers of this subtle and incredible movement which now shackles the evangelical mind and destroys all true Bible exposition. It is one of the principal tasks of the movement in our day towards sound Biblical and "Reformed" exposition, to destroy this error. In that task one principal weapon must be the epistle to the Galatians.
If we can demonstrate and prove that the Galatian epistle establishes beyond all cavil that the Church is one, a unity, in Old Testament and New Testament, and that therefore the New Testament Church is the final form of "Israel," the inheritor of all the promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the fulfillment of the prophecies of the kingdom which Messiah came to establish, and did in fact establish-our task will have been completed and our readers must do the rest.
It is our deliberate contention that this is the very position established in the next chapter (the fourth) of our Galatian epistle, established with such force that it can only be avoided by a blindness or an ignorance culpable in its nature.
Chapter four contains Paul's final argument, proving these two things: (1) That the work of "adoption" performed in the hearts of all true believers demonstrates that they are the legitimate successors of the Israelitish church of the Old Testament. (2) He reinforces this by an allegory built upon Abraham's history, showing that the natural Jew is not Israel at all but Ishmael; and that the church of Jew and Gentile believers is the true and only and exclusive Israel of God.
This being so, the promises to Israel in the Old Testament prophecies are to be spiritually understood even when they speak apparently of literal and material restoration of "Israel and Judah. This is the key the only key, to prophetical interpretation. We proceed therefore: Gal. 4:l~"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant though he be lord of all."
Paul is saying that in Old Testament times the true church, the true people of God, were in a state of minority. Not having "come of age," they were treated as a child in a rich man's household, the heir to all the father's estates and privileges, but not yet at that age when that inheritance could properly be bestowed. Therefore, the child-heir finds himself fenced about with restrictions and officers who regulate his life so that he has no liberty to enjoy his privileges but must await "the time appointed of the Father." This is expressed by Paul in the words, "But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father" (Gal. 4:2).
The tutors and governors of the church in the Old Testament were the regulations of the Mosaic code. Paul deliberately transfers the figure of the child-heir to the church in her Old Testament minority in the words- "Even so we, when we were children, were in bond age under the elements [margin - rudiments] of the world" (Gal. 4:3). The childhood of the church was in Israelitish form under the Old Testament. The "bondage" was the subjection of the people of God to those earthly "rudiments" of visible temple, sacrifices, circumcision, and all other legal observances "in the flesh" which constituted the preparatory condition of the people of God before the coming of Christ.
Of that glorious event when the church obtained her release and passed from under the law to the full liberty of gospel faith, Paul now speaks- "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4-5).
"The fulness of the time" means the times of prophetical fulfillment of all the purposes and promises of God in redemption. That Paul should call the gospel times "the fulness of the time" means that the gospel age is the age of fulfillment of all things which God spake by His holy prophets since the world began-Luke 1:70.
These are "the last days" described by Paul in Hebrews 1:2, "the end of the world" (Heb. 9:26), "the last time" (1 John 2:18). If these are the last days and the last time, and the end of the world, how say the dispensationalists that there is a "time" after "the last time," another kingdom to come after the "kingdom of God" has run its course, another age after the gospel age? We await with confidence their reply.
In this "fulness of time" God's Son was sent forth, born of the virgin, born under the law, that as One obliged by His true humanity and the time at which He appeared, to keep the whole law, did so in the perfection of His mediatorial office, redeeming "those who were under the law" that they with us Gentiles might receive together that "adoption of sons" which sets us beyond the servitude of the law and introduces us to the full inheritance of the sons of God. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts crying Abba, Father" (v.6).
This is the difference between the experience of the people of God in the Old Testament and those in the New Testament. The difference is not one of the quality of salvation or the nature of faith, but in the status and privilege enjoyed. Living after the sacrifice of Christ which procured the full restoration of the soul to direct communion with God, the believer now receives the full witness of sonship and is released from the service of outward forms and ceremonies.
After remonstrating with the Galatians for yielding so easily to the subversions of Judaistic teachers, Paul resumes his argument in the famous allegory of Sarah and Hagar. This occupies verse 21-31 of our chapter and is the final word to end all argument of prophetical interpretation.
Abraham had two sons-Ishmael and Isaac. The former, who was the son of the bondwoman, Hagar the Egyptian, was rejected by God as not being the true heir. The other, Isaac, was the son of Sarah the true wife, and this was the true seed through whom the promise of God would come. Then, in the apostle's argument, comes the most startling reversal in the entire history of prophecy. Hagar, the Egyptian bondmaid, is identified with Jerusalem and Jewry. Sarah is identified with the true Church~"the heavenly Jerusalem."
The allegory thus declares that earthly Israel (the twelve tribes) is to be regarded as Ishmael because they are in bondage to the law and not free. The true Church of Gentile and Jew (in which all distinctions of race, degree and privilege are abolished~this is the true Israel to whom the promises made to Abraham apply.
Hagar and Ishmael stand for Jerusalem "which now is" (that is, the earthly Jerusalem standing with temple and sacrifice at the time of Paul's writing). Sarah and Isaac stand for the true gospel church, the "Jerusalem which is from above." The covenant made with Abraham is the promise of the gospel, and from that promise every Jew alive or who ever will be alive, is excluded except insofar as he comes by the same road of repentance, faith and regeneration which the Gentile believer treads.
Paul reinforces his allegory with a quotation from Isaiah 54:1 "Rejoice thou barren [Sarah] that barest not; break forth and cry thou that travailest not: for the desolate [the New Covenant] hath many more children than she that hath an husband [the Old Covenant]." The abolition of the Old Covenant means the abolition of Israel (Jewry) from all her privileges, and the emergence of the New Testament Church is the rise of the new "Israel of God," Jew and Gentile, with all distinctions obliterated, to whom alone the Abrahamic promises belong.
This is tersely and categorically expressed by the apostle in the words, "Now we, brethren [i.e., the church of the N. T.] as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Paul touches in v.29 upon the persecuting envy of the Jews against the church to whom their privileges have passed, and likens it to the hatred of Ishmael against Isaac and concludes his argument by quoting against the Jew the very words originally spoken against Hagar and her son Ishmael~"Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman with her son [i.e., the Old Covenant and the earthly Israel]: for the son of the bondwoman [Israel] shall not be heir with the children of the free woman [that is, the N. T. Church]" (v.30).
The dreadful judgment of these words is unmistakable: Israel is cast off and cast off forever as a nation. Paul gives no hint of any "restoration" though here would be the place to state it, if restoration there is to be. Jewish privilege is ended for all time. The covenant has passed to the New Testament Church in which Israel has no part except as individual believers.
This "casting off' is not anywhere modified by Paul. We have elsewhere shown that in Rom. 11 Paul is speaking of individual Jews and not the nation, when he writes, "If the casting away of them be the riches of the Gentiles, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?"
His last word to the Galatians is, "So then brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free" (Gal. 4:3 1 ). This he writes to the most Gentile of all the churches, showing that to the Gentile church has passed the covenant, the glory, the birthright, the privilege and the redemption hope.
The consequences are most far-reaching. They extend to every prophecy of the Old Testament in which the New Covenant is foretold, even though the words of the prophets are addressed to "Israel and Judah." That "Israel and Judah" is the New Testament Church, and though the prophecies are couched in terms of the land of Israel and employ topographical and geographical details drawn from the earthly territory of the twelve tribes, these are "figures of the true" just as temple, sacrifice and priesthood, passover and feasts were "figures of the true," designed to portray gospel truths to those whose ears are open to hear. It is greatly to be feared that to very few of our prophetical teachers today those words could be addressed: "Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear" (Matt. 13:16).
It might well be asked of our dispensational friends today-What was it that the Lord hid from the wise and prudent Jews of His day and revealed only to "babes" (Matt. 11:25)? If it were "the things" pertaining to His kingdom which He had come to establish on the ruins of Satan's empire of sin and death, then the "kingdom" which he "offered" to the Jews was entirely spiritual and not natural, and this is the reason why it was concealed from all except those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
The reason why the Jews rejected Christ is the same as that for which they still reject Him today-namely, because they expected an earthly kingdom, and Christ did not bring them this. The prevailing prophetical theories, however, insist that Christ did in fact "offer" this kingdom to the Jews and because they rejected the offer, the gospel was brought in as an afterthought or a substitute. What the dispensational theory is saying is that Christ offered to the Jews the very kingdom which they expected, but they rejected Him and it! At the last, says this extraordinary theory, Christ will relent and will in fact give the Jews the very kingdom which they crucified Him for not establishing at His first coming. The dispensational theory therefore vindicates the Jew for 2,000 years of unbelief and at the same time contradicts itself by alleging that the kingdom which the Jews rejected was the very kingdom which they crucified Him for not offering but which will be gratuitously conferred upon them in the near future as the fulfillment of what God promised to Abraham.
If our friends cannot see the hopeless dilemma in which their theory involves them, we can only marvel at the success of that error of dispensationalism by which evil powers have succeeded in well nigh destroying scriptural exposition and understanding.
The truth is that there is not a breath of suggestion that Christ ever offered" to the Jews any other "kingdom" but the gospel: that this was in fact the kingdom which John the Baptist came to present under the keyword "repent," which Christ Himself presented with the same keyword "repent," that the Sermon on the Mount with which He formally introduced His mission was in fact an exposition of the text- "Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." In that great sermon Christ promised or offered nothing to anyone except "the poor in spirit," the "mourner for sin," the "meek," the "brokenhearted," and those who "hungered and thirsted" for true righteousness.
Dispensationalism, faced with the embarrassment that these dispositions of soul are noticeably absent in the Jewish occupation of Palestine today, had to descend to the device that the Jew must go back to Palestine in unbelief though this was the very reason for which the Jew was cast out of Palestine. The theory teaches that the Second Coming of Christ will convert the Jews "in a day" despite the fact that they do not need to be converted to the conceptions of an earthly kingdom of Christ, seeing they crucified the Savior for not setting up this very thing.
The dispensational theory today is jubilantly hailing the prospect of an early fulfillment of Jewish expectation of an earthly kingdom of Messiah. The theorists exceed the rabbis in this enthusiasm, though it is from rabbinical sources that their theory has been contrived. They actually tell the Jews that their present occupation of Palestine, in a state of bitter hostility to Christ and the Christian gospel, is the fulfillment of prophecy and that their ungodly zeal against Christ and truth will be rewarded shortly by God with an instant faith and that this extraordinary act of God will be a fulfilling of the promises made to Abraham.
But Paul in Galatians has already told us who Abraham's seed are, to whom these promises are made, and he mentions not a word about restoration to Palestine, but builds it all on the nature of the Church. He maintains, as we have shown, that the Church is the lawful continuation of Old Testament Israel and the inheritor of the Abrahamic covenant and promises.
We ask our dispensational friends to consider what their position will be if the present Jewish occupation ends in disaster. While they are forming their reply, we would point out to readers that so far from converting Israel and establishing them in the land, the second coming of Christ will overtake them (and all the world) "as a thief in the night," in the which the heavens will pass away with a great noise and the elements melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up (2 Peter 3: 1 0).
Peter knows of no other "second coming" save that which abolishes the heavens and the earth in one stupendous conflagration. Where then is the earthly kingdom which Christ is to bring to the Jew, and where is the "kingdom" of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Adventists and the Armstrongites? We fear for the company which our dispensationalists keep and earnestly entreat them to consider Paul's interpretation of who Israel is, what are "the two covenants" and what is the nature of "the promise" made to Abraham?
Our last word is that of Paul, significantly found in the conclusion of that epistle specifically written to deliver the Church from Jewish error and Jewish pride:
"God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." (Gal. 6:14-16).
No, I'm not saying that at all. I’m saying the Galatians were pagan Gentiles who converted to Christianity. Some Judaizers sought to have them follow the Law of Moses in the act of circumcision and other traditions. What is especially interesting is that Paul compares his Jewish customs to the pagan Gentiles. He makes the case that if he rejected his Jewish customs under the Law why on earth would pagan Gentiles seek to adopt those practices?
Please consider Paul’s comparison recognizing he is speaking to pagan Gentiles :
Here he compares the Gentile Titus and his example of not having him circumcised.
The Judaizers were guilty of wanting the Gentile Christians to follow the Law even though they were living like Gentiles (e.g. under grace-not under the law).
Our righteousness does not come from “things” we carry out. It comes from Christ.
The sons of Abraham are those who live by faith – not works of the Law. (From a previous discussion)
The “days and months and seasons and years” Paul is referring to is the Jewish traditions that the Gentile Christians felt they needed to uphold-not pagan Gentile holidays.
Paul wants them to become as he, one who no longer follows the Law.
Paul felt very strongly that observing the Law, especially circumcision, was wrong and had grave words for those who taught such things.
Paul in Gal 6:12 states the primary reason for the Judaizers insistance on following the law was simply so that they could all get along and harmonize with other Jews. Well, sorry. Paul didn’t buy into that nonsense. He welcomed persecution.
You can't compromise your faith for the sake of getting along. We are not under bondage. We are under our Lord Jesus' righteousness and NOTHING we can do will change that. Our works are to be done in secret so our heaven Father will award us. Any outward apperance is show whether it be circumcism, religious celebrations, or whatever. These do not do anything for our righteousness as some would have us believe.
From post #486:
Actually, there's no evidence that He did any such thing. It doesn't seem that the meal Jesus had with His disciples was a passover meal.
Except of course, for:
Mt 26:17 Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?"Just how twisted and anti-Jewish does your theology have to be to try to deny that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder?Mt 26:18 And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The Teacher says, "My time is at hand; I will keep the Passoverat your house with My disciples."'"
Mt 26:19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.
Mr 14:12 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, His disciples said to Him, "Where do You want us to go and prepare, that You may eat the Passover?"
Mr 14:14 "Wherever he goes in, say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says, "Where is the guest room in which I may eat the Passoverwith My disciples?"'
Mr 14:16 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover.
Lu 22:7 Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passovermust be killed.
Lu 22:8 And He sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passoverfor us, that we may eat."
Lu 22:11 "Then you shall say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room where I may eat the Passoverwith My disciples?"'
Lu 22:13 So they went and found it just as He had said to them, and they prepared the Passover.
Lu 22:15 Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passoverwith you before I suffer;
the greek word used to decide the bread, artos, always refers to leavened bread in the NT
Manifestly untrue, since in Mk. 2:26 it is used of the showbread in the Tabernacle, which was always unleavened:
The Bread on the Table. It is in the passage from Leviticus that we find the particulars of the loaves "And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake. And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the Lord. And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Lord. Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant. And it shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto Him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire by a perpetual statute." (Lev. 24: 5-9.)See also The Passover Bread - Which Bread did Jesus Eat before he died?(1) The loaves or cakes were made of fine flour. This at once points to the meat-offering, which in like manner was made of fine flour, with the addition of oil and frankincense. (See Lev. 2) No leaven is mentioned, whereas in the two wave loaves (Lev. 23: 17) leaven is expressly specified - for the obvious reason that, in this case, the loaves represent the Church, and therefore leaven - emblem of evil - is found in them. But the fine flour is a type of the humanity of Christ, and hence the loaves of the shewbread are without leaven, He being holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, absolutely without sin. –From The Christian’s Friend (1879)
Why would they speculate about buying things for the feast if they were in the process of celebrating the feast?
Maybe they thought he was being sent out for more wine (a distinct possibility, since the 14th of Nisan, when Passover took place, is not a Sabbath, while the 15th, the first day of the Feast of Matza, is). That’s a pretty weak argument against a total of eleven verses that say in no uncertain terms that this was a Passover meal.
One has to wonder at the kind of bias that would even attempt to explain this very basic fact away.
You want to be like Jesus. Under the old covenant gentiles that wanted to fully participate in the old covenant ceremonies, esp. passover, were also required to be circumcised.
Yep. That’s one element which I do believe has changed, since He gave a general command that the Passover should be done in remembrance of Him. I’d get into the details of why, but you don’t care; you just want to argue.
If you want to figure it out for yourself, think about why Passover, alone of all the Feastdays, was for the circumcised only when it was in commemoration of being saved from Egypt.
To post 487:
Hey, I only asked a questionand quoted a verse. What are you getting defensive about. Are you going to answer? What does Luke 21:22 "literally" mean. And what was the theological significance of AD70?
The significance was that God took away the Temple in punishment for Israel not receiving the Messiah, exactly as the prophets had predicted. Nothing more.
Sociologically, it was the beginning of the Church starting to distance itself from Torah and anything else that might seem “too Jewish.”
To post 488:
That’s a denial without an argument, and not even worth bothering with.
To post 489:
How do you distinguish between "Torah" and "Mosiac covenant"?
One is the body of commandments which itself “holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12), which is Spiritual rather than carnal (v. 14) and which tells us what sin is (v. 7), and of which not the least letter or penstroke will pass away until the heaven and earth do (Mt. 5:17-19). The other is Israel’s promise, in their own power, to keep the Torah completely (Ex. 24:6-8, Jer. 31:32, Heb. 8:9). The covenant to keep God’s commands in our own power was replaced by the New Covenant, but the Torah was not—rather, the Torah is written on our hearts by the Spirit so as to enable us to do God’s will (Jer. 31:33, Heb. 8:10, Ezk. 36:27).
How many times exactly do I have to repeat this for you? It’s not like you’ve provided a Scriptural argument that the Torah and the Mosaic Covenant are synonymous—you just make the assumption that they are and argue from there (otherwise known as “begging the question”).
I don't see anywhere in Hebrews of the rest of the Bible how you can make a arbitrary distinction between the law of Moses and the Mosaic covenant.
No, of course you don’t.
To post 493:
I tend to think the first option is what Paul has in mind.
I agree completely. One not eating meat at all would not refer to a Jew, since Judaism nowhere urges vegetarianism; it only forbids certain animals for use as food.
In any event this hardly applies to modern day gentiles who voluntarily place themselves under old covenant cultic practices.
Oi vey. Talk about missing the point. I’d explain further, but since you haven’t gotten it the first twelve times, it’d just be casting pearls before swine.
If you can’t figure out the difference between obeying God’s Law to be saved and obeying it because you are saved, then it’s not just the Tanakh you don’t understand, but the whole of the Gospel.
I am no longer a slave to sin. Instead, I am a bondservant to the Messiah, and I seek to follow His commands.
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Torah but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of Torah-lessness leading to more Torah-lessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.You think Sha’ul was denigrating the Torah? Let’s look at what he thought of it:
--Rom. 6:15-19
For not the hearers of the Torah are just before God, but the doers of the Torah shall be justified. (Rom. 2:13)Hmm . . . gee, that doesn’t seem to fit with your view.Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the Torah, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the Torah? (Rom. 2:26-27) Do we then make void the Torah through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (i.e., uphold) the Torah. (Rom. 3:1)
Therefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (Rom. 7:12)
For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Ro 7:14)
For I delight in the Torah of God according to the inward man. (Rom. 7:22)
For Christ is the end (telos, goal) of the Torah for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:4)
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Cor. 7:19)
Therefore the Torah was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24)
But we know that the Torah is good if one uses it lawfully. (1 Ti. 1:8)
All Scripture (including the Torah, one would assume) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Ti. 3:16-17)
We need to run to the merciful High Priest who can release us from all our bondage, the one who has paid the price not after the shadowy and decayed priesthood of Aaron and his sons, but according to the order of Melchizedek.
I agree to the greater point. If you had come to my Yom Kippur service last night, you would have seen exactly that. Nevertheless, the Scripture is clear, and you have not yet managed to put together a cogent argument against it, that the Aaronic priesthood was given to the children of Phinehas as an eternal covenant, and that God has promised in no uncertain terms in Jer. 33 that He would preserve the line to once again offer sacrifices.
From post 496:
And Paul says that any mingling of law and grace is a basic denial of what Christ came to accomplish.
So once again, boast to us of all the sins you deliberately committed today to demonstrate the “freedom” that this “grace” has brought you. Oh, you try to not sin out of love for the Lord that freely redeemed you? Good. So do I.
Actually he does impose these views on others.
Nope. I recognize the freedom we have in Messiah for you to disagree with me. I do believe that God is not neutral in this matter, but I don’t think He needs me to be His enforcer. My only job is to speak the truth, as best as I understand it, in love, which I have done.
But speaking of imposing views, topcat, who is it who’s been running around posting thread after thread advocating his brand of Calvinism for the last year? Who was it who joined in on the bash-fest of those who drop the vowels of G-d and L-rd because they don’t want to treat God’s Name lightly, just because he doesn’t personally care for the custom? Who is it who joined the charge to call me a heretic because while I affirm that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all One God eternally and all at once, I prefer to use other models than to say, “One God in Three Persons”? Who was it who posted this thread attacking Dispensationalism? Who is it who has dragged every single religious thread I’ve been on in the last month into a referendum on my Messianic views?
Which one of us on this thread has been trying to convince the other that he must worship the way he does? It’s not me.
There is a psychological term for what you’re doing here, topcat. It’s called projection.
Oh, sure, he doesn't go around beating you for up for not wearing certain clothes or eating certain food or following certain ersatz holy days. He doesn't have that power.
More projection. I wouldn’t if I could. That’s not my place.
He believes that Christ's commandment to His body today is to follow the old covenant practices according that tradition of the rabbis and his fellow messianics. He has made that abundantly clear.
Actually, no. I have said that Yeshua affirmed the Torah—and He did (Mt.—oh, heck, if you haven’t read it by now, you’re never going to). I have pointed out that He had no problem with traditions, so long as they did not distort the Torah and so long as they didn’t become impositions. I have already given numerous examples of where we Messianics distinctly do not follow the Orthodox rabbis because of conflicts with NT teaching. What I have said about the rabbis is that they weren’t dumb, and it’s interesting to get their perspective. I have said that in some cases, I bow to tradition in applying the Torah’s commands where the tradition is consistent with the teachings of both the Tanakh and the NT. In others, we adapt the tradition to reflect our belief in Messiah Yeshua.
Can a person who persists in such misrepresentation of another’s view really afford to pick up all the stones that you do?
He obviously cannot impose those views on anyone else, but he nevertheless says "thus saith the Lord" when it comes to these issues.
I say, “Thus sayeth the Lord” only where the Scriptures say it. Let’s take the example of Yom Kippur for a moment. The specific command for the people besides the Levites is thus:
Also the tenth day of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation for you; you shall afflict your souls . . . And you shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God. For any person who is not afflicted in soul on that same day shall be cut off from his people. And any person who does any work on that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. You shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be to you a sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath.Thus the commands are:
--Lev. 23:27-32
1) The date, the 10th of the seventh month by the Hebrew calendar.Now, by custom, Orthodox Jews fast on this day; they also go without entertainment, bathing, grooming, or even wearing shoes.
2) To join with others in worship (“a holy convocation”)
3) To rest and treat it as a Sabbath. This is actually reiterated three times, so it’s pretty important.
4) To “afflict your souls.” In context and in the original Hebrew, this phrase literally means to deny, to humble ourselves.
I fasted. I say this not to boast, but to set up the next couple of paragraphs. I also humbled myself before the Lord, reflected on my sins, and meditated on Heb. 7-10. I worshipped last night with others who were doing the same. We said some of the traditional prayers of repentance together. We also heard the Kol Nidre, a traditional prayer which asks God to forgive and release all oaths made that year. This prayer originated during the Middle Ages, when Christians forced Jews to convert at the point of a sword or with the heated tongs of a torturer, and was heard for its historical significance, not because it applied to any of us.
Now, the fasting actually goes beyond the original command. I did it purely out of tradition, and because the NT does support the practice of fasting within its proper context. I do not represent fasting on Yom Kippur as a divine command, though I think it appropriate as part and parcel of (not in replacement of) humbling one’s self before God, taking mastery over one’s flesh and making it one’s servant (1 Cor. 9:27). On the other hand, I refrained from other forms of physical abasement, like going without bathing or grooming, because of the Lord’s teaching in Mt. 6:16-18. Clearly, I do not regard fasting and other abasement as a substitute of genuine repentance, and an over-emphasis on self-abasement on Yom Kippur over genuine repentance is clearly addressed by Scripture (cf. Isa. 58).
One Orthodox custom is that by fasting and repenting on Yom Kippur, one is written into the Book of Life for another year. As Messianics, we celebrated that our names are written in that Book for all eternity by the Messiah’s abasement.
A person who merely rests and prays on Yom Kippur, who joins others in doing so, and who humbles themselves before God by reviewing and repenting their sins, has fulfilled the whole of the Torah’s command whether they fast and say traditional Jewish prayers or not. Any traditional observance beyond the four points actually given in Scripture is just that—tradition, a way of doing things, and no more a matter of judging for me than whether one puts a star or an angel on their Christmas tree would be for you.
Further, if a Christian honestly believes that they are not supposed to observe Yom Kippur, I give grace where the Lord has been gracious to me. I may disagree with them on Scriptural grounds, but I don’t judge their walk on the basis of outward observance of this particular day.
That’s your schtick.
They are not the weak brethren in their eyes.
Nope. Nor, I believe, in God’s.
We are to keep Christ's commandments as evidence of our love for Him (John 14:15). To add all these old, expired, cultic laws as legitimate commandents for today is to cheapen that which truly remains.
I can’t separate the two. Messiah Yeshua is the same God who gave the Torah at Sinai. He affirmed the whole Torah and lived out the whole Torah. He told us to do the same. By the example of their lives, the Apostles did so.
If you can, fine. Go your way. But stop picking fights with me over this.
From post 497:
When did passover observance go from mandatory to voluntary?
It didn’t, to my mind. Indeed, to me, seeking to be like Yeshua in every way, shape, and form is not voluntary, but a matter of properly loving Him. I am fully convinced in my mind in this.
If you are fully convinced in your mind that you are not supposed to observe the things that the Messiah did, fine. Go your way. I think you’re wrong, but I also think that God judges us based on the light we are given; that is, based on the things we know to be wrong (cf. Rom. 2:1ff). The only way that you will be judged for not keeping Passover is if you see in Scripture that it is right, are convicted by the Word and the Spirit, but ignore that conviction and thereby live out a lie.
From post 501:
The "elementary things" here are the old covenant regulations in the law of Moses.
Look again. This is disproven by two points:
1) In v. 8, Sha’ul says, “But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods.” He’s not speaking to Jews, but to Gentiles. He then clarifies what he means by “elementary things” when he writes in v. 9, “But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?” The Gentiles were never in bondage to the Torah or the Jewish flaw of the legalistic observance thereof, but to demon-gods. Thus the “days and months and seasons and years” are not God’s Feastdays, but the false “holy days” of the demon-gods. Were I interested, I could actually turn this around and turn it into an argument against Christmas. I am not.Just do a word-search on “law” or “Torah” throughout the Bible, and you will see that the Bible itself says that if it is understood properly, it is not a burden, but a delight. I have found this to be true in my own life, as have a million other Messianics. The Torah is no burden because we are not depending on observing it just right to save us—our salvation in the Messiah frees us from the terrible burden of having to be perfect.Instead, I will just point out that Sha’ul identifies the “weak and beggarly elements” in v. 9 with the “those who are by nature not gods” in v. 8, and thus we should understand the “the elements of the world” not as the commandments of the Torah, but as the “elemental spirits” who pretend to be gods, the demons who pervert God’s perfect Torah into a burden of legalism and whisper to men that they must keep it in just such-and-such a way to be saved.
2) The Torah is not “the elements of the world.” It is Spiritual (Rom. 7:14). It was given by God Himself on Sinai. It is not a source of bondage “used lawfully” (1 Ti. 1:8), but is a delight for the one who keeps it (Ps. 1:2).
“The Torah of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple” (Ps. 19:7).“Blessed is the man whom You instruct, O LORD, And teach out of Your Torah” (Ps. 94:12).
“For I delight in the Torah of God according to the inward man.” (Rom. 7:22)
I will say it again, since you seem not to have grasped the concept: I do not seek to keep the Torah to be saved; I seek to keep it because I am saved, and I want to be more like my Savior.
It is interesting that you find such an idea so objectionable. Do you not try to abstain from lying not for fear that you will lose your salvation, but simply to be like Jesus and to do what is right in His eyes? Do you not avoid occultism? Sexual immorality? Do you not try to govern your anger and give up your pride? When you find sin in your life, do you not repent of it?
All those things are commanded by Torah, and you seem to have no concept in following them in telling the difference between working to be saved and following God out of love. Why then do you think I should find it difficult to do the same when observing God’s appointed times, for example?
To post 503:
The problem before us does not fall into these categories in my mind. Here we have the matter of Jews and gentiles who seek to keep the traditions of the rabbis out of religious scruples.
You know, this is really getting repetitive. I’ve explained this as many ways as I can think to, and yet you still persist in trying to judge my heart in an false manner.
Tell you what, you work on that command about not bearing false witness, and when you get that down, we’ll talk about the rest.
And that’s it. Everything else is just repeating the same false assumptions over and over again. If and when you post something that’s actually new, I’ll reply. If you just reiterate that which has already been disproven, I’m moving on again.
I also apologize for not getting back on your post. I'll try to answer it tomorrow; if not, I'll be back on Sunday.
Thanks for your patience.
Great post, Harley. Every word backed by Scripture.
"When did passover observance go from mandatory to voluntary?"
It didn’t, to my mind. Indeed, to me, seeking to be like Yeshua in every way, shape, and form is not voluntary, but a matter of properly loving Him. I am fully convinced in my mind in this.
If you are fully convinced in your mind that you are not supposed to observe the things that the Messiah did, fine. Go your way. I think you’re wrong, but I also think that God judges us based on the light we are given; that is, based on the things we know to be wrong (cf. Rom. 2:1ff). The only way that you will be judged for not keeping Passover is if you see in Scripture that it is right, are convicted by the Word and the Spirit, but ignore that conviction and thereby live out a lie.
What I was really looking for was an answer to all my questions, i.e.,:
When did passover observance go from mandatory to voluntary? When did all those "thou shall"s get changed to "thou may"s? Are they only voluntary because he's a gentile? Or are they voluntary for everyone? If it's voluntary because he's a gentile where does the Scripture make that racial distinction wrt the old covenant law of Moses? In any event where is the rule change to permit gentiles to voluntarily observe passover without first being circumcised (i.e., becoming a Jew after the flesh)? Is a person's standing in Christ complete and perfect without the observance of any of these old covenant regulations, or are you guilty of falling short of Christ's word to keep His commandments as a demonstration of our love towards Him?If the laws are still mandatory, then all the other questions are pertinent.There are many questions that have yet to be answered. It helps to dig deeper. I'm sure you can see why Paul was so concerned about law keeping esp. among the gentiles.
I didn't expect you to be able to give a coherent answer, but neither did I except you to blow it off. Oh, well.
BTW, JM, you wrote, "He has the freedom to observe them, just as much as he has the freedom not to observe them". I hope you now recognizes that our friend really does not believe he is free to observe or not observe. They are mandatory in his mind and according to his theology. That was the purpose of all those questions that he ignored.
In reality what he appears to believe is that these laws are not objectively true for everyone. He said to me, "The only way that you will be judged for not keeping Passover is if you see in Scripture that it is right, are convicted by the Word and the Spirit, but ignore that conviction and thereby live out a lie."
You see, the passover laws to him are not objectly true. It's as if a person in the old covenant would have said, "Hey, I was not fully convined in my mind that I shouldn't work on the sabbath or eat unclean things, therefore you cannot cut me off from the people." The priests and elders would have laughed as they were tossing him out on his ear.
It's the folly of his inconsistent theology. Part old decayed covenant, and part new covenant. Thankfully we are not saved by law keeping, or even by having a right theology. Not doubt there are all sorts of folks in weird cults that may be truly saed by trusting in Christ shed blood alone. The danger here is the continued mixtiure of law and grace. It may seem subtle, and they certainly mince their words when forced into a corner, but the bondage of the law always finds its way through unless we suppress it with all our strenght by the power of the Spirit.
"For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ."
Moses or Christ, that is the choice.
You know, this is really getting repetitive. I’ve explained this as many ways as I can think to, and yet you still persist in trying to judge my heart in an false manner.
I don't judge your heart, I judge your actions.
You keep passover, no? Do you follow a "passover seder"? Where did it come from?
"All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it." (Exodus 12:47,48)
The law says that as a gentile you are not permitted to participate in the passover. Either the law has changed according to the word of God, or your participation in your erstaz passover is according to a human tradition. Where did the tradition come from?
The same is true for the other ersatz holy days you celebrate. You keep rosh hashanah, yom kippur, etc, no?
"And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering, and one ram as a burnt offering. 'Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house.' ... 'This shall be a statute forever for you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether a native of your own country or a stranger who dwells among you. For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. It is a sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls. It is a statute forever. And the priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as priest in his father's place, shall make atonement, and put on the linen clothes, the holy garments; then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tabernacle of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year.' And he did as the Lord commanded Moses." (Lev. 16:5,6,29-34)
"Then you shall sacrifice one kid of the goats as a sin offering, and two male lambs of the first year as a sacrifice of a peace offering. The priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits as a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs. They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. And you shall proclaim on the same day that it is a holy convocation to you. You shall do no customary work on it. It shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations." (Lev. 23:19-21)
Where specifically did God authorize the modified observance of these holy days according to the tradition which you now follow? If you can demonstrate how any of my statements or conclusions are wrong, then I will certainly own up to the correction and say no more about it.
Either you and your fellow messianics have specific authorization from the word of God, or you do not. The fact remains that these cultic laws were not modified by the coming of the new covenant, they have "decayed" and "faded away" (Heb. 8:13).
Notice, I said nothing about your heart. Na dI have never said anythign about your heart condition. It's your activities that are in question here. We judge what we see according to the word of God.
Shalom.
Thanks for your very complete response Harley, But when I read verse 9 it tells me that what they are turning back to is what they were doing before.....not what some "Judaizer", in your words, was trying to teach them.
Gal 4:9, "But now that you know God-or rather are known by God-how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?"
I think you are wrongly reading this as they wished to go BACK to their old pagan habits. They wished to be circumcised. There were certain people who wanted “the Gentiles to live like Jews” (v 2:14). Instead of following Gentile pagan customs, certain Jews wanted the Gentiles to follow the Jewish customs. Paul states that they will be enslaved all over again.
Circumcision, eating or following “dates” are of no avail. They are all legalistic trappings to make one think they are doing a righteous act. Following traditional Jewish holidays was a documented problem in the early church and one that Paul venomously fought against. Please consider this:
I will also add the argument sounds enticing. What could be so wrong with having a Passover or forgoing certain foods? We’re doing it for the Lord. Man gets himself into trouble every time when he gets into this way of thinking. It falls under the “Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in you name…” category.
Thanks again Harley. Sorry for taking so long to get back.
My Bible translates it, "how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles." Same thing, in essence! My question is......how could they turn back to something they had never known?
No where in this passage does he mention Sabbaths and I cannot find anywhere in scripture where God commanded us to observe any month. He does instruct us in Colossians to not pay any mind to those critical of our festivals, New Moons or Sabbaths. Col. 2:16
I know. I've been swamped myself. Must be something about October. :O)
Same thing, in essence! My question is......how could they turn back to something they had never known?
That is my whole point. Paul was looking upon the customs of the Jews and the Gentiles and saying there was no difference in them. For Paul, when he was saying "turn back" it was simply turning away from living by faith.
This goes back to the Romans 1-3 where Paul talks about the Jews having the Law and Gentiles having nature. The Jews could see God in the Law but couldn't live by the Law. The Gentiles OTOH while they might recognize God in nature through His creation never could give glory to God. Everyone has to come to God through faith in our Lord Jesus. There is none that does what is right. He is our righteousness.
For the Galatians they were "turning back" from faith by trying to satisfy God's requirements through other methods. It didn't matter if they were following the works of Zeus or works of the Law; or the holy days of either one. They were "turning back" from living by faith.
I am convinced that God has done the same thing with creation. Take anything, whether in nature or in Scripture, and look for spiritual meaning, you will find Christ.
I agree 100%. I may be accused of mysticism here, but I think it is a Biblical truism that the physical and spiritual worlds reflect each other. I believe that all of the Levitical services that God ordained were to allow human beings to experience and partake in things spiritual. I believe the same of baptism (water immersion) and the Lord's Supper. I also believe that there is not a passage of the Scripture in any book that is not unraveled if one will just put the Messiah in the middle of it.
Even, strangely enough, kosher.
God has put meaning into everything, and our business is to search it out.
Amen. "The glory of God is to hide a thing; but the honor of kings is to search out a matter" (Pr. 25:2).
Thus a spiritual Abomination of Desolation, would have to be connected with Christ because he is the Spiritual Temple, and the desecration would have been on or immediately after the Cross.
Not necessarily, though I don't think you're completely off here. First, we have to be very careful about time restraints on God's Word--"I am coming soon," is no less true because 2000 years of mortal time have passed, for a thousand years to us is as a day to God.
Too, we have to be careful not to overemphasize the spiritual to the point where we discount the physical. In order to save us from a spiritual condition--sin and death--the Messiah made Himself both a spiritual and physical sacrifice. The physical sacrifice reflected the spiritual sacrifice and vice-versa.
Therefore, when dealing with the Abomination of Desolation, while admitting that there is a spiritual reality (a false god trying to set himself up in the believer, who is a temple of God), let us not discount the physical reality: Yeshua says that this future Abomination will take place in the geographical location of Judea, for example. He further states that those who lived there would have to flee at that very moment, and that we should pray that it doesn't take place in the winter or on the Sabbath and that nursing women would be at a particular disadvantage (Mt. 24:15ff). All of these point to a physical act, not merely--or rather, only--a spiritual desecration.
The connection to Messiah Yeshua is made clear in both the Olivet Discourse and in 2 Th. 2--in both cases, the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Abomination of Desolation is a sign of the Second Coming--within 3.5 years, in fact (Dan. 9:27 and 12:11-12; Rev. 11-12).
All things point to the Messiah, but not always directly. Some things are signs to show us God's schedule, like the coming of the Antichrist.
Does that make sense? And do you disagree? The answer to the first question doesn't have anything to do with the answer to the second, of course. :-)
I am not going to disagree with anything in this post, but I have some questions and I will try to use the above paragraph to frame them. It is not my intention to overemphasize the spiritual over the physical. I see a spiritual theme running beneath the surface throughout scripture and nature. Nicodemus was confused when he was confronted with this. I think we need to find guidelines to discern between natural and spiritual.
You talk about a spiritual condition--sin and death--. Which is it? There is a natural sin and a spiritual sin, a natural death and a spiritual death. There is a physical sacrifice and a spiritual sacrifice. Do you think the cross is physical or spiritual?
Anyway, I am always looking for the spiritual significance, in any passage of scripture. There is something in the Abomination of Desolation that I cannot see. In the meantime, I will look at the physical because that is what I can see.
Seven
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.