Are there any parts of the Old Testament that are obsolete for followers of Jesus? How about the teachings of Jesus?
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: We do well to take careful heed of every word God has spoken, not throw out anything God has revealed, and embrace His inspired word that can change us to go out and change our world!
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The commandments of God are pure, and just holy, and wonderful! Dive in to all of the word of God: love the old Testament as Jesus loved it, and you will understand God better and know how to live.
A Queer Thing Happened to America (SIGNED COPY!) and Is Homosexuality America’s Greatest Moral Crisis?
Insights into the Fall High Holy Days
Grafted In: The Jewish Roots of Christianity [DVD set]
Why This Jew Believes in Jesus
Our Hands Are Stained With Blood by Dr. Brown: This shocking and painful book tells the tragic story of the “Church” and the Jewish people. It is a story every Christian must hear.
60 Questions Christians Ask About Jewish Beliefs and Practices: Dr. Michael Brown answers sixty common questions about Jewish people and Jewish culture. He also addresses questions Christians have about their own relationship to the Old Testament Law.
Stand with Israel [messages on mp3 CD] Dr. Michael Brown speaks on Israel
Jewish Roots Online Class: This 10 lecture class will open your eyes to God’s eternal purposes for Israel; give you a deeper burden for the salvation of the Jewish people; open up the Jewish background to the NT and show the prophetic importance of the biblical calendar.
I think this thread is suitable for discussing what we were before.
I have a question: have you considered that Time, itself, is going to change — actually, “return to normal” (restoration of all things) — when we are in the presence of He Who is both the beginning and the end (Messiah)?
“…the treader of grapes shall overtake him that soweth seed…” Amos 9:13
(*That is, we will be living in the reward/consequences of our actions before we even take those actions)
In His presence, “a day is as a thousand years” (“in the day you eat of it, you will surely die” Gen 2:17 — Adam didn’t reach [none have] a thousand years of age): therefore, the thousand-year reign of Christ is referred to as “the last day” [John 11:24] — wherein both resurrections take place: one in the “morning” (Pr 19:12), and one in the “evening”(Psalm 59:6 / Rev 20:9) of that Day — in which case, a [present-time-wise] year would pass every 14.4 minutes.
Have you considered that, concurrently, those feasts (which were actually pointing to something of true substance to be found in Christ) in the presence of God would, then, be fulfilled within much smaller intervals of (physical) “time”? If a person is looking after the fallen time to fulfill these feasts, they might be missing the bigger picture?
Have you considered that, then, people who exist in the present time and who walk with Yeshua are observing the feasts (or the actual substance of them) at many times every hour?
The only natural time (the current form of time is only a “loaner”/donut until we get the permanent fix) that’s existed is that time before the fall; and that is the same type of time to which we are returning.
Why would I mention it?
Because the Law was formulated for a time (and a people) which was warped/fallen; in the future age, time will change back/be fixed — and the angle at which that Law is perceived/executed will change, along with it.
In Adam’s time (the same sort of time we will be returning to — i.e.: time that is in the presence of Him Who is both beginning and end), if you told him, “you will observe this feast every few months”, you would’ve meant “every 80,000 years [give or take a few ten thousands], you will observe this feast”; if you wanted me to observe them every few months, you’d have to have told me something that looked more like “every 14 minutes, we’re going to be doing these things”: I believe that disciples of Yeshua are constantly keeping the feasts (rather, those substantive things to which they pointed, which are found in Christ) as they REMAIN IN CHRIST (since HE is the substance of which the feasts merely POINTED TO – Colossians 2:17).
How do we know it won’t be a similar situation in the coming age?
I hope you get the overall idea I am conveying — that it is very possible that the feasts are like “steps” that people are meant to walk in (with the LORD); not yearly but momentarily: those who walk in the Spirit are already keeping “in step” the true substance of the feasts (the WAYS/STEPS in which we are to walk with God), perhaps, without “knowing” it — the Roman believers certainly did not need any outside teaching to assist them in serving God (since they were receiving Laws from the Lawgiver in their hearts, not being forgetful hearers, but doers of those Laws issuing forth from the Spirit — as it is written, “serve after the newness of the Spirit; not the oldness of the letter”).
“The easiest way to tell if you believe in the real Yeshua or not is, do you accept ALL of His words, even the scary, harsh, and un-pc ones, or do you only accept some of them thereby rejecting the rest. This radio show was about those who reject some of the words of Yeshua. I say that is very dangerous for them, but again, I will let God be judge and decide who is in and who is out.”
Which ‘Words’, precisely, are you talking about? Since you read them differently than I do, do you mean to say that if I don’t celebrate the Jewish Holidays (which, according to you and Bo, that IS the ‘true’ meaning of His Words; therefore, I and the rest of the Body ‘ought to do’ — whereas, Romans 14 says not to judge brothers for not observing certain days/eating certain ways); would you ‘cast stones’ at me for not? Last time I
checked, the Law was shadows and types of things to come; but the substance is Christ. Last time I checked, Jesus said that Moses accused (like Bo tends to do); last time I checked, we were being pointed to a “new and better Covenant, UNLIKE the one given to the fathers of the Israelites” by the Laws, therein.
All of them, as a collective unit, the whole lot.
If you accept the entire scripture, and can offer a cohesive answer for your systematic theology based on all the verses, that I can respect, even if your conclusions are different to mine. It’s those who ignore large portions of scripture and don’t even try to reconcile scripture with itself, who have patchy theology, in the sense that it has huge gaping holes in it with no answers or any defence for why they hold to the position they do that greatly concern me. Like the once saved always saved crowd. I don’t see how anyone can hold to that position, if you accept the book of Hebrews. There’s just way too much scripture against that doctrine, but if someone could come up with some substantial answers for that doctrine, I wouldn’t agree with that doctrine, but I could respect them, because they’re thought it through and done their homework so to speak.
I accept upon myself Romans 14 as binding scripture, but I understand it differently.
My understanding is that everything we do, ultimately is to God, not to man, as Psalm 51:4 says,
1. I understand that differently — NOT “so what if your brother doesn’t walk correctly with the Lord”, since the OPPOSITE is taught: immoral brothers need to be dealt with by their brothers.
It says those who live as unto the Lord “are accepted” by the Lord.
2. I didn’t mean that literally (casting stones), but what about when it says, “you will not wait — your hand will be the first against them” (para.): is there room for courts and judges, there, or…?
Let me put this in common Christian terms.
If someone has communion, he does it to the Lord, if someone does not take communion, he does not do it to the Lord.
If someone gets baptised, he gets baptised to the Lord, if someone does not get baptised, he does not get baptised to the Lord.
If someone pays tithes and offerings, he pays them to the Lord, if someone does not them, to the Lord he does not pay them.
If someone feeds the hungry, gives drink to the thirsty, is hospitable to a stranger, and clothes the naked, and visits the sick and those in prison, one does these things to the Lord, and if one does not do those things, he has not done it to the Lord.
So ultimately whatever someone does, it’s to the Lord, so don’t take things personally when people choose not to do things for the Lord, because it is to the Lord that they will have to give an account. Also, when a new convert joins your church, don’t expect them to be righteous overnight, but be patient with their process of sanctification, and remember ultimately they will have to answer to the Lord if they push it, abusing grace for too long.
You shall not wait is what happens after the trial, if the person is found guilty, the sentence must be carried out. But the Torah is not about vigilante justice, despite what the zealots got up to, the Torah is very clear about due process, and I would be appalled at any Messianics who would take the law into their own hands. Yeshua spoke time and time again about how we should not take the law into our own hands.
1. “…and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him” shows that the man “who is accepted” regardless of not observing the day is not sinning.
“For God has accepted him” is not said of the man who has sinned, and must be expelled, according to 1 Cor 5:9-13
“I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people… [I meant] that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat… ‘Expel the wicked man from among you’.”
2. I am not fully acquainted with the Jewish customs of how justice was carried out; but, it doesn’t sound like they have to go to a court if a girl is found guilty of not being virgin on marriage night… all they do is bring her and her parents to the elders of the city, let the community make the decision, and then stone her in front of her father’s house.
It doesn’t say “they will go to the 70, let them make a decision, etc.,”; it says, “the elders of the city will make the decision”.
The 70 would refer to Moses for any decision too difficult for them to make; it seems the people would only go to the 70 for decisions too difficult for them to make, themselves.
*let the elders make the decision
I agree that God has received the vegetarian, but:
1. that verse could be understand in two ways: a) for God has accepted him (the vegetarian), or b) for God has accepted him (the mature believer who has faith that God gave us specific creatures for eating.
So it’s not 100% clear which person, it’s referring to, and
2. that verse is about the weak faith of vegetarianism, not about observing days.
So even though you can argue that from inference, it isn’t spelt out plainly.
There is grace for newly saved people, but doesn’t mean they should stay as babes forever with false ideas that compromise their faith making it weak, but rather they should grow in maturity, renewing their mind and soul.
There are some sins which result in excommunication. But I don’t think the New Testament considers not being mature and grown up in your faith as a sin. Being a babe is a reality, and though a babe would get excommunicated for persistent sexual sin, etc., they wouldn’t for believing in the false doctrine of vegetarianism or for believing in the false doctrine that all days are equal. Again, being a babe is not something someone is excommunicated for. But I wonder if someone had been in the community for 20 years and still hadn’t grown at all, if they’d still be allowed in… I don’t know, I don’t think the NT deals with that, but that reality is incredibly common nowadays in the Church.
The Torah was given to Moshe and the 70 elders and their authority to judge was passed down generation to generation, but when the second temple was destroyed and the Sanhedrin was disbanded, that put an end to the Jewish court system. Until the seventy elders are restored, no one at all can go around ‘punishing’ people as if they have the authority to do so. If you want to read the Torah as if it mandates people to carry the death penalty on a personal level, I can understand how you might come to that conclusion, but I read the Torah that way. I see a consistent message of going to the courts to sort out things and only after an investigation, could the sentence be carried out. There are many passages that support that truth. Here is one example:
You’re right that not every law case went to the Supreme Court. But the Torah does acknowledge the lower courts, as it says,
So there clearly were different levels of courts and judges, however it is the presence of the 70 elders that legitimises the authority of the “rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens”.
1. The inference is clear:
“stop judging your brother who isn’t doing anything wrong – they are not separated from God by what they are doing; since God has accepted them, why can’t you?”
which is wholly different than in the case of the brother of whom it is said:
“have nothing to do with him”
Nowhere in Romans 14 does it even suggest “not observing XYZ day is a sin”; however, there is a verse which does specifically reinforce Romans 14’s declaration that non-Sabbath observance, non-holy-day-observance, and non-food-law-conformance are all non-offensive to God, in Colossians 2:16, since these are “merely shadows of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”
2. IF someone was implicated in a sin requiring capital punishment, and they said that the testimony against them was false, then an investigation would begin; it didn’t say “every matter is to be thoroughly investigated”, as some do not need to be.
It doesn’t say in the Law “go to the 70 to find out what to do”, since the Law already tells you what to do: it is when the Law is unclear (or the execution of the Law is unclear, due to circumstances, etc), that the 70 were to be approached by the people; likewise, the 70 did not approach Moses, unless there was a case too difficult for them to decide upon.
Nowhere does it talk about a priest in the case of the girl who is found to not be a virgin on the night of her marriage, nor does it mention the 70 making a decision; it merely says, “the elders of the city who sit in the gates” and “the mother and father” — where do you fit the 70 into that text?
I accept babes in Christ, those with funny ideas that it’s wrong to eat animals, even though the scriptures teach that God is the source of morality and He says we can eat meat to our heart’s content, I also accept the babes that think that all days are equal, even though the scriptures make it clear that God has marked out certain days as sacred to Him. I have no problem accepting babes in Christ who have not yet have a strong faith, but unfortunately have weak faiths.
I don’t think it is a sin for babes to be babes and not understand that vegetarianism is a belief that stands against the revealed word of God, as they hear Moshe preached every Sabbath day they will learn that God determines right from wrong and God said it’s ok to eat animals.
Romans 14 does not say anything about eating rat and dung as being non-offensive to God. The context is Torah Jewish Believer vs vegetarian, Torah Jewish Believer vs unbeliever with regard to God’s set apart times – Weak faith believer vs strong faith believer. And just because something points us to Christ, like communion, doesn’t mean we throw it away just because it is a shadow. And you going to stop taking communion because it’s a shadow of the death of Christ? Shadows help us remember, internal and connect to God, why do you think He gave them to us. He knows what humans need to connect to Him, and that’s what shadows achieve, or communion would serve no purpose.
I never said the seventy elders are present at every court hearing, but rather there presence in the land is what sanctions and legitimises the authority of the “ rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.”
1. It never says “when they hear Moses’ commandments preached, they will finally take on the yoke of Moses’ Law”; it DOES, however, make the affirmative statements that:
a. “you are not under Law, but grace”
b. “[Paul was] not under the Law” (Paul), and
c. “[Paul was] under the Yoke/Law of Christ”
d. “Do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (speaking of the Law) Gal 5:1
e. “the Law is the strength of sin”
f. The Law’s ministry is “condemnation”; not sanctification — condemnation leads people to *Christ, Who has a ministry of sanctification: with one sacrifice, He perfected those being sanctified (which sanctification WILL NOT come about by, “after beginning in the spirit”, thinking you will progress in the Spirit by keeping Laws” (Galatians 3:3).
So, to ADD words that contradict those statements — why would you? It is not proper.
I’d advise working *within the boundaries of what is clear; don’t ignore those verses, or work OUTSIDE the bounds of clear doctrine: begin IN its bounds.
Again, what you have stated are affirmatives which war against clear New Covenant doctrine — however, feel free to believe those things.
(Note: The Law of Moses wasn’t even perfect; it was fitted for sinful people, and made allowances, which are not made in the New Covenant — the making of vows, for instance; and the giving of a certificate of divorce [for hardness of heart, it was allowed — those who divorce for any reason other than infidelity are making people commit adultery: how do you commit adultery, unless you’ve already been intimate with an individual?])
2. Communion is not an Old Covenant regulatory ‘shadow’; it is a New Covenant Commandment, as it was not present in the Old Covenant: the two are not comparable, so the comparison is moot.
3. So, if the 70 are not present, you shouldn’t do anything, since if you break part of the Law, you break it all. If you can’t keep the entire Law, don’t keep any of it, or you are a breaker of it all.
“If you died with Christ to the rudimentary things of this world, why submit yourself to Laws concerning it… which things perish with the use?” : people overly concerned with things which “perish”, will also “perish” in like manner; those who concern themselves with the imperishable Christ will be imperishable, in like manner.
The 70 did not legitimize anything; they are the ones to whom the people turned when they had a problem which they couldn’t handle on their own.
Consider FOR WHAT REASON the 70 were set up: to assist Moses in judging things which were “too hard” for the people to figure out on their own.
NOT EVERYTHING falls in the category of “too hard” to figure out.
The 70 were an annexation of Moses’s function: Moses was NOT needed to decide in cases such as the girl who was not a virgin at marriage, and the 70 are not needed, either — they are only for cases too hard for people to figure out on their own.
I am taking a small break from this forum, since all this talk is hypocritical of me to do if I myself am not LIVING 100% the “Truth” that I (think) I know. Au revoir.
Do you believe that there are certain days on any calendar that should be observed as much as holy communion should be for Christians today?
Would it be right to say to another that he should go to church on Easter Sunday as much as take holy communion, that holy communion should not be as important to him as Easter Sunday is?
Can we say that a man is not living right if he didn’t miss the holy communion service as he participated in it, but he happened to miss attending the Easter Sunday service?
And what about the man that has participated in many more holy communion services than he has attended Easter Services?
I suppose we might say to a man who has not been to an Easter service in many years, “You really ought to go in my opinion. You seem to have forgotten so much about the resurrection.”
Yet if he is strong in holy communion participation, wouldn’t he be strong in the importance of the cross and also have a strong awareness of the Lord’s presence giving out that he is fully aware of his resurrection?
I suppose it would depend on how he participates in holy communion and that’s a matter of the heart and soul, things we can not know unless God reveals it to us one way or another.
Paul wrote to the church of Corinth about holy communion. Did he ever write to any church about keeping days and if so, was he for it or aganist it?
It seems to me that he did, and it wasn’t so much that he was against it, but he was concerned for them, for it seems to me they might have been putting too much upon such things which might take them away from the gospel.
In fact, when I read Galations, such seemed to be the case there.
In looking back at post #36, what I’m getting is that the Jews who are a part of the New Covenant
are also a part of me, even as I am a part of them, for we are one body in Christ Jesus.
I have been tied up for the last few days and will be for a while yet. YHWH willing, I will respond to your posts soon.
“YHWH willing, I will respond to your posts soon.” – Bo
Here’s something I saw recently.
The words of Jesus:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. – Matthew 15:11
This conflicts with the food laws doesn’t it Bo?
Jesus taught that us that he is Lord over the Sabbath. (Matt 12:8)
He is Lord also over what goes into the mouth of a man, even though we ourselves decide what we eat.
Not in those exact words, but no serious Biblical scholar would conclude that:
a) abstaining from things polluted by idols
b) from sexual immorality,
c) and from things strangled and blood.
was an exhaustive/exclusive list of what would be expected of Gentile believers for the rest of their lives. Scholars admit this was about what was necessary for Gentile babes in Christ to join in with what was almost an entirely Jewish assembly, many of whom had been into temple prostitution and other gross sin. So to drop full Torah observance onto them would be akin to taking a children out of kindergarten only to put them into university to study quantum physics. Obviously there is a development process with children – kindergarten, primary school, high school, university. Just because you don’t put babes in university doesn’t mean that when the babes grow up that they shouldn’t go to collage.
The establishment of the New Covenant was also a big game changer. Not in changing set times and set laws but by it’s delivery mechanism. Like a doctor who’s patient’s airpipe becomes blocked, doing CPR won’t help him, he needs to cut into the throat so that he can breathe. This was the problem before the New Covenant. The Torah was outside of us, on stone tablets, but not on our hearts where we need it, but the New Covenant cuts into our airpipe to deliever the much needed air (Torah) into our lungs (heart). With the Old Covenant man was primarily responcible to convert people’s minds and hearts, but man failed miserably at that job. This time God Himself, by the power of the Holy Spirit, was circumcising man’s heart, writing His Torah on their hearts. So for man to come along and try to do that would be to deny the role of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant and a less effective means of spiritual growth for the new babes.
King David said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
Paul makes it clear in Romans that there was nothing wrong with the Torah itself, but only that the Torah could not change man’s unregenerateness, as he said,
So Yeishua came to change US, not the Law, because the Law was not able to write itself on our hearts. We need to know that there is nothing unjust, immoral, evil about God’s law that He would want to change it. It’s holy, just and good. It’s us who are unholy, unjust, and evil that need to have the holy, just, and good Torah of God written onto our stony willful stubborn hearts.
The Torah failed us in that its truth was outside of us. It could not turn sinners into saints. But when the Holy Spirit was sent, she could do what was previously impossible.
Before the infilling of the Holy Spirit, we didn’t see the value or worth of God’s holy and righteous law, and our hearts were not pierced by it, but now, the Holy Spirit can pierce our hearts with God’s Torah, implanting it within us. We only need to yield ourselves to the Holy Spirit.
The fact is Moshe being preached was the custom of all religious Jews in the first century, so Gentiles were bound to hear it in that context. It is within this reality that Shim’on Keifa mentioned it, for he knew they would hear the Torah portions every Sabbath day.
Ya’aqov the righteous said,
Why hear the commandments of God only to walk on acting like one never heard them?
The Torah is a light yoke. As Jeremiah 6:16 says speaking of the Torah,
The great tragedy was that they would not walk in it. King David truly felt the heart of God when he cried out,
But let’s get back to your post…
You could at least quote it in context,
This means that to be under grace is for lawlessness not to have a hold over you. Grace did not come to give us a lisence to sin, but to give us time to bear fruit, because,
So we must use this window of time very wisely,
The context clearly being under the law of sin and death, which Yeishua died to set us free from, so that we could serve the law of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, as Paul himself proclaimed,
And when Paul said the law of God, he was clearly referring to:
I don’t think see the Torah (teaching) of Yeshua being against or contrary to the Torah of God. If it was, that would make Yeishua an Anti-Christ figure that changes set times and set laws. (Daniel 7:25) Yeishua is the son of David, the root of Jesse, of the tribe of Judah, the Messiah of the Jewish people. His teachings and commandments are completely in harmony with the Torah of the Lord given by Moshe.
That’s clearly not speaking of the Torah of God, as King David said,
The yoke of slavery being referred to is not the yoke of fulfilling the righteousness of the Torah daily by the power of the Holy Spirit, but the yoke of being slaves to sin. Paul wrote a lot about Messiah setting us slaves free from sin and making us slaves to God. If one turns his back on Messiah, and the Holy Spirit, one will again become a slave of sin very shortly.
“e. “the Law is the strength of sin””If you are in the flesh, yes. But if you are a new creation, and have died to yourself, then the Holy Spirit can give you strength to overcome the old man. And will also circumcise your heart with the law of God so that it becomes second nature and not a chore, as Paul says,
So as long as you are in the flesh, you will be carnal and at enmity against God, and not following the law of God, for it is not possible in the flesh, that’s why the New Covenant was made, to make the impossible possible. To take unregenerate sinners and circumcise their hearts, so that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in their lives, as they live it out daily.
That’s an overly simplistic, one-sided view of the Law. It does so much more than just condemn sinners. It also,
Scripture is filled of all the wonderful benefits of the Torah on us, check out:90 reasons to keep the Torah
Psalm 119:165 speaks of the Torah’s protective power as it says:
This is why it was those who keep the Torah with integrity and pureness of their heart accepted Yeshua, but the hypocrites, the perverse and those who played games with the Law, rejected Yeshua, because they hated the light of the Torah for their deeds were evil, but nothing could cause those lovers of the Torah, with hearts burning for its holiness to stumble over the stumbling stone. As Ya’aqov proclaimed,
Again, if King David had lived in the first century, he would have not stumbled over the stumbling stone of Yeishua, for nothing causes the lovers of God’s Law to stumble, which is why the Jewish believers were exclusively made up of those zealous for the Torah.
The context of Galatians was clearly about people rejecting Yeishua, as he said,
Faith in Yeishua was illegal, but Judaism wasn’t, so some Jews were being tempted to give up on Yeishua to escape persecution. They would rationalise it by thinking that by them keeping the Torah, that God would still accept them. Back then it was persecution, today a considerable number of Christians and Messianics have been bewitched into abandoning faith in Yeishua to become B’nei Noaḥ or Orthodox Jews. The reason now is their heart become so grieved by the state of the church – the Antisemitism and contempt of everything Jewish, that they feel compelled to jump ship to keep mental santity and emotional stability, but they’re too rationalising just like the first century Jews.
But regarding sanctification, the scripture says,
How do you persue holiness, if it is something you already have, a once off event?
Being holy in all our conduct is what sanctification is all about.
Again the context was people abandoning faith in Yeishua thinking that just by keeping Pharisaic law that God would accept them.
I find it astonishing that you’d say that considering,
We should seek to accept the entire word of God. I’m not adding anything to it. It’s actually the Roman theologians who took from the word, creating their apostate faith.
It only wars against the Roman understanding of New Covenant doctrine, and regarding the perfection of the Law.
New Covenant doctrine has to be in harmony with the Torah, if it is not, then it is outside of Biblical faith, as clearly evidenced by numerous passages in the Hebrew bible.
You’re referring to Matthew 5:33-34, right? There is some evidence that the original reading was slightly different. The Shem Tob reads,
And even if the Greek was a faithful translation of the original Hebrew Matthew, the context was about swearing by heaven, by the earth, by Jerusalem, and by one’s own head. The Torah of Moshe never commands us to swear by those things, so Yeishua was right to tell off Jews for having a culture of swearing by all sorts of different things. One should only swear by the Lord, and only when one truly needs to. Jeremiah 23:7-8 speaks the final ingathering, when Yeishua returns and the angels gather the Israelites from the four winds and they will swear then with God’s approval.
Also, after the New Covenant was established the Apostles approved of men taking vows,
Why would Paul, the Apostle, agree to this, unless he approved? In fact, he had taken a vow himself after accepting Messiah, thus demostrating the proper practice for Believers.
So you see that Oaths and Vows are clearly still valid practices for Believers.
Actually, the Greek says fornication, not adultery, meaning that if on the husband’s wedding night he discovers his bride is not a virgin, he can send her out of the house. And we can understand why Moshe gave permission because most of the Christian Church permits divorce for unscriptural grounds, even though they claim to follow Christ. When Yeishua said,
that unfortunately is not only true of the ancient Israelites, but that’s also true of the hardness of hearts of most of the modern day Church.
Only if you don’t see the Bible as one message. Communion is a picture (shadow) of the crucifiction, just like passover is a picture (shadow) of the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. They’re both part of the same Bible, and passover was practiced by the Apostles after the establishment of the New Covenant. In fact one of these Old Covenant shadows was so important to the Apostle Paul that he put off the preaching of the Gospel to go off to Jerusalem to keep a shadow,
This clearly shows you what our priorities should be, since we are to emulate the Apostles as we emulate Messiah.
Even after Soloman’s temple had been destroyed Daniel the prophet, a man greatly beloved by God (Daniel 10:19) still tried to keep the Torah in Babylon,
And the prophet Ezekiel when in exile in Babylon had a similar spirit,
So clearly, just because some of the Torah can’t be fulfilled at the present time, doesn’t mean one throws out all the commandments of God, or why not go rob a bank?
The context of that was,
Not the commandments and doctrines of God. Vegetarianism is an imposed religion which neglects the body of its needs, but God’s prescribed diet is very nutitious, and contains everything we need to be fully healthy.
If I answer you right now, it will be out of the flesh that doesn’t want to be humiliated; I have to seek the Lord, and replying isn’t going to save me in the Day of Judgment.
You wrote a lot of things, and a lot of it is incorrectly understood Scripture. I’ve gone over these things so many times; I don’t want to go over them again, because people will just keep coming who never heard the explanation, and what am I going to do? Answer them, too? Maybe I am not called to do this.
Keep enjoying Jesus.
All I have to say is: you tell me where in the Law I can find a Shepherd that can lead me out in the middle of the night to a parking lot where a woman (who is supposed to be Christian) is dialing a witch doctor to cast curses on (and possibly kill) her husband, because he is Muslim and beats her and mistreats her child — that can lead me DIRECTLY TO HER AT THE PERFECT MOMENT that she needs to be reached, while she is on the phone with this witch doctor?
The SPIRIT leads men into righteousness, at the perfect moment; NOT the Law. The SPIRIT replaces the LAW: “serve in newness of Spirit; not oldness of letters.” New vs. Old Covenants — the new one is NOT LIKE THE OLD ONE: SERVE IN NEWNESS, FOLLOWING THE LAWS THE SPIRIT PLACES INSIDE OF YOU, UNIFIED TO GOD IN SPIRIT IS GREATER DEDICATION THAN ANYTHING .
When Moses ascended, down came the LAW and 3,000 died.
When Yeshua ascended down came the SPIRIT and 3,000 died (with Christ) — i.e.: were joined together with Yeshua on the Cross, and resurrected with Him in the spirit.
There are people out there who need the Lord; the Law can’t do anything for them — it is THROUGH CHRIST that they are reached!
I think it’s really awesome that the Lord lead you to help that woman, and I’m truly happy for you that the Lord used you that way. But that is who our God is. He’s so great, isn’t He? Divine appointments have happened from the beginning and will continue, because that’s just who God is.
I understand that we’ll have to agree to disagree about God’s law, but I just want to make one point clear about where I’m coming from.
I don’t believe that people should be legalised into God’s law by men. And I don’t think people should try and burden themselves with rushing into it, in their own strength, or in their flesh.
I only believe that we all should read the word of God regularly and as we find the Holy Spirit asking to write on our hearts, that we yield to her.
But again, I realise we’ll probably have to agree to disagree, but I just wanted to make it clear to you exactly I’m coming from.
I’m 100% against men burdening others saying, do this, do that, and I would agree that is clearly against the NT teaching. Where we disagree is tragically on the role of the Holy Spirit.
If my memory serves me correctly, I remember that Sy Rogers was attending a gay church before he got saved, but one day he was reading the word and realised that God doesn’t like homosexuality. It really stuck with him. He then questioned his church leader about it, and the leader kind of dodged the question, like it was nothing. But the power of the conviction of the holy spirit changed him… He ended up leaving the Gay Church and abandoning homosexuality.
That’s an example that hopefully we both can agree on, but unfortunately I’ve heard of a top Assemblies of God leader teaching that pornography is fine for the pleasure of a husband and his wife. Now this man is spirit filled, so how on earth could he justify pornography like that?
The sad truth is just because people read the bible doesn’t mean they’ll yield themselves to that still small voice of God when their flesh or the voices of their peers are louder.
Those Churches that don’t believe in seeking the gifts of the spirit, their Christians do so because their conscience has been taught it’s of the devil, so they avoid it like the plague. I think something similar happens with regard to God’s law. I was at a Chinese cell group once, and they happened to be reading through the food laws, and without me having opened my mouth, some of the Christians were thinking, it seems like God doesn’t want us to eat this stuff, but then the official church doctrine is tragically put in their head to block the voice of the Holy Spirit.
Sy Rogers followed God by ignoring his Church leader who told him that law didn’t matter.
I just think we shouldn’t let man make us think that we shouldn’t do what the Bible tells us to do, but should follow the voice of the Holy Spirit.
But again, we’ll probably have to agree to disagree.
I still wish you all the best and to have all that God has for you.
That was standard fare for me until I got entangled with “church”; it was downhill from there, and I still haven’t recovered.
We have to know God for ourselves; church doesn’t help anyone know God, only COMMITMENT TO JESUS does. Those people who don’t “hold fast to the head” will be cut off.
I know Dr. Michael Brown will disagree on the importance of Church; but my belief will not change, regardless.
About fifteen years ago, I had such a bad Church experience that I was losing my mind. It was actually learning about the Hebraic roots of the faith that helped put this little humpty dumpty back together again. Regarding the Church, you know it says not to forsake the assembling – I wouldn’t just say be very careful what kind of Christians you choose to open your heart and mind to. The role of leadership in the body is clearly Biblical,
“Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly,not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.” 1 Peter 5:2-4
The problem is how many of today’s leaders fit that profile? I see a lot of fat cats, who are poor examples, and enjoy their tithe money.
I had a friend who went to Bible collage, and a question was asked of all the pastors in training, ‘What is most important to you – kingdom of God, or a big Church with lots of money?’
Most of the trainy pastors said, ‘a big Church with lots of money’. Because the more people attend, the more tithes, and the greater the salary for the leadership.
So I acknowledge how terrible the modern situation is, but that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t want us to have leadership, but those men have to rise up to what’s required of them.
I made a typo, sorry, ‘I wouldn’t just say be very careful’ should be ‘I would just say be very careful’.
The Holy Spirit knows our whole history and the best possible way of helping us grow spiritual, and a spirit-led leader will often confirm what the Holy Spirit has already spoken to you about, but a flesh-led leader will just get irritated at you, and try and manipulate you into conforming to his ideal.
A spirit-led leader is humble and is filled with love and loves to serve, a flesh-led leader is proud and loves lording himself over others.
But being around other Believers, isn’t something we do just because we’re told. It’s actually a necessity. We need brothers to lift us up in prayer, who look out for us with our own good in mind, who are loyal and will fight our battles with us. Without the body, it’s far easier for Satan to pick you off.
“and they happened to be reading through the food laws, and without me having opened my mouth, some of the Christians were thinking, it seems like God doesn’t want us to eat this stuff” – David Roberts
What do you say about this?
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. – Matthew 15:11
I am not trying to give advice, BUT it says “but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man”; NOT “eat whatever food you want to eat.”
The part in Mark that says, “thus declaring all foods clean” was INSERTED at a later date than the writing, itself.
I can tell you that God is a lot more concerned with what you are SPIRITUALLY eating than what you are PHYSICALLY eating…
“BUT it says” – Dan1el
I just quoted what it says. Are you saying Jesus spoke in broader language than he meant? Was he only talking about unwashed hands?
It sounded like he meant a lot more than just a trace amount of dirt.
I don’t understand the question; Jesus said “to eat with unwashed hands does not make one unclean”. The Pharisees were saying “why don’t your disciples WASH THEIR HANDS”?
Jesus answered THAT question; NOT the question, “why do your disciples not keep kosher?”
Apparently, if Acts is at all a dependable account, Peter had not been eating “unclean” animals during the time that he was walking with Jesus — i.e.: “I’ve never eaten anything unclean” when the sheet filled with animals dropped down [in the vision] means this.
“Jesus answered THAT question; NOT the question, “why do your disciples not keep kosher?”” – Dan1el
I understand what you’re trying to say, but Jesus didn’t reply “a little dirt don’t hurt”. That would have been a specific answer to a specific question, all that was necessary. He answered with broad language, apparently, seeming to make a larger point that includes the dirty hands question and more. It may just be too broad an interpretation.
“These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”
Daniel, that was directed at the Pharisees, who wanted Yeshua and his disciples to comply with their own traditions (ritual hand-washing, a rabbinical enactment which was not commanded in the Torah).
So He reprimanded them while giving them a clear picture.
(I haven’t been following all the posts, just responding to Daniel’s, above.)
Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?” – Matthew 15:16-17
Sounds like Jesus’ teaching is in conflict with the food laws to me.
Are you serious?
They asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples wash their hands?”
Jesus said, “To eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”
What is there to not understand?
Are you serious?
They asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples wash their hands?”
Jesus said, “To eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”
What is there to not understand?
As I was meditating on the word the other day, and a couple of passages were brought to my mind.
9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
I fully believe that Our Father is a good father. He would not give us something harmful to eat. If we ask for our daily bread, He gives us no stones. He gives us that which is food, not that which is not food. So has he made that which is not food into food?
1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Here, we find the answer in principle form. He does not make stones into bread. He does not make food of nonfood. He gives us His word as to what is and is not food. We are to live by that word.
So a good Father gave us instructions about what is food. He did not want us eating stones or swine flesh. When we ask Him to bless our eating of that which His word does not sanction, are we not, in essence, tempting Him to transform stones into bread?
Now, we have seen what a good father does. What about a good son. When a good son is tempted to make food out of nonfood, he says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of YHWH.” Does a good son ask his father for stones to eat? Or snakes? Or scopions? In our immaturity we may think we want to eat those things, but once we have learned the Father’s will we abstain from that which is poison or harmful.
A good son believes what his father says. He follows the wise and good instructions of his father. He refuses the temptations of the devil. A good father does not give that which is not food to his son to eat.
Allow me to share my take on Peter’s vision. I think this is a better way to understand what was being communicated to Peter and to us than the common explanation put forth by churchianty. I hope you enjoy it.
Peter’s vision has a specific purpose and message to get across. We need to be careful not to come up with our own interpretation of dreams and visions…especially if YHWH has told us what is the correct interpretation in His word.
In Genesis 40 and 41 we have some dreams and their interpretations. Can you imagine interpreting Pharaoh’s dream to mean that thin cattle are going to start eating fat ones? Or that fat cattle have zero calories? Or telling Joseph that the baker’s dream meant that he was going to have left over bread and was supposed to use it to feed the birds? Or that baskets were going to be the new style of hat in ancient Egypt? No! Let’s keep our private interpretations to ourselves and simply accept YHWH’s interpretation in Acts 10 also.
We take note that in these dreams: Three branches and Three baskets = three days, and Seven kine and Seven ears = seven years. There is a specific reason for the numbers involved in dreams and visions.
In Peter’s vision the sheet is let down three times and lo and behold three men come to get him. Three sheets = three men. Peter could not imagine that YHWH would actually ask Him to eat unclean animals and so he did not know what the vision meant, until the three Gentile men from Cornelius arrived and the Spirit told him to go with them. (Acts 10:16-20) And one thing that Peter did not ever think that the vision meant was that it is now fine to eat unclean animals. If YHWH didn’t specify such a meaning and Peter didn’t think it had that meaning after hearing the interpretation from YHWH, neither should we.
The dream was meant to shake Peter out of his prejudice against Gentiles. He looked at the three sheets that were filled with “all manner” (every kind) of animals, birds and creeping things. “All manner” would have included both clean and unclean. He judged the whole group of animals in the vision as unclean and/or common, just like he judged all gentiles as unclean/common. His upbringing was flawed. His society had been instructed in the traditions and commandments of men. (We know that Messiah took issue with such teaching, and He still does with ours.)
The Jewish oral law designated it as unlawful to eat or go into a Gentile’s home.(Acts 10:28; 11:2-3) YHWH’s Torah does not say this. Peter was in need of being corrected. He needed to know that it was wrong to put all Gentiles into the same “unclean” category, just as it is wrong to place all animals into the same “unclean” category. Some animals are clean and YHWH has cleansed some Gentiles. Not all animals are clean, and not all Gentiles have been cleansed. Only those people that fear YHWH and work righteousness have been cleansed.(Acts 10:34-35; 1John 3:2-7) The same goes for Jewish people as well as Gentiles. Peter realized from this vision that YHWH is no respecter of persons and that we are not to be either. Moses, Paul and James agree. (Leviticus 19:15-18; James 2:1-12; Romans 2:5-15;1 Peter 1:14-18)
Peter now knew what the vision meant. YHWH had shown him that not all Gentiles were unclean or common and that he should not call that which YHWH has cleansed common or unclean.(Acts 10:15) As for the things that YHWH has not cleansed…they are still unclean…this goes for people and animals. Though we may go into a Gentiles house and even eat with him, we are not allowed to eat unclean animals. All this said, there is a place and a group with which YHWH does not want us to be a associated.
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
You see there still are unclean animals and birds. There still are unclean people and spirits. There is a place that we are to come out of…Babylon…because it is full of unclean people and spirits. (And unclean meat for that matter.) We are not allowed to stay in “Babylon” and partake of her unclean “delicacies”(physical or spiritual)…unless we want to receive the same judgment that she will receive for her transgressions and unrighteousness.
As a side note: If unclean animals have all been cleansed, which they haven’t, why are they still called unclean in Revelation? If unclean animals have been cleansed, why doesn’t Peter make us aware of such in Acts? If unclean animals have been cleansed, why doesn’t Paul or John or especially Y’shua tell us so?
Dr. Michael Brown, in “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”, volume 4, says this of Acts 10:9-16 on page 27-275:
‘Now, this has often been interpreted as a
divine command for Peter to eat treif (i.e.
unclean food), but the text says nothing of
the kind. Rather, as Peter was soon to
understand…”God has shown me that I should
not call any man impure or unclean.” (Acts
10:28b). but that is not the point I want to
emphasize here. Rather, it is Peter’s earlier
response to the visionary command to kill and
eat unclean animals…If his Master and Teacher
had revoked the dietary laws, as some have
understood Mark 7:19, surely Peter would have
understood, especially if Peter had been a
primary source of mark’s information.’
The above quote comes from the book that Dr. Brown gives a link to at the top of this page.
Oops pages 274-275
“What is there to not understand?” – Dan1el
The broad statements are what cause my questions and conclusions – not the specific ones that you focus on…
I see. Well, I hope the Lord reveals the Truth to you.
Greeks and Romans read broad statements as absolutes, but Hebrews use broad statements all the time in a hyperbolic way, so it is ALWAYS crucial to read the surrounding context, because to understand what a Hebrew, a Jew means, you don’t go with the broad sweeping statements, but by the immediate context.
One example of Western/Roman misunderstanding of a Hebrew paragraph is 1 Timothy 4:4, which says,
Christians will point and say, look there! ‘nothing is to be refused’… ok, well if that’s really what they believe that every single creature that God created is good for eating (i.e. edible) then Japanese puffer fish (fugu), which is a thousand times more poisonous than cyanide, should not be refused.
Again, the immediate context tells you what it really means. It was talking about vegetarians who,
Suddenly the whole picture becomes clear.
1. “meats which God created to be received” means not all meats were created to be received.
2. by believers who know the truth (the Torah – Psalm 119:142)
3. The condition on meats not being refused is that they must be sanctified by the word of God
People ignore context so they can create a religion that suits their personal style. The real truth is that 99.9% of Christians believe in a list of clean animals and unclean animals, only their list is different from God’s list.
From God’s point of view, locusts are clean, edible and have His stamp of approval, but from most western people’s perspective, they’d say oh gross, a bug! Yet they love lobster, shrimp and prawns which from God’s perspective are abominable unclean creatures which we must avoid. So it’s not that they really believe ALL foods are clean, it’s that they believe the foods God says is for eating, is not, and the foods God says is not for editing, is. If they truly believe all foods were clean, they would eat everything, but they have their own list of what is in and out, and when it comes to locusts and shrimps, it’s the exact opposite.
Woe to those who call edible inedible, and inedible edible.
Comments are closed.