Questions Concerning Messianic Judaism

[farouk]

There were always gentile believers welcomed into the commonwealth of Israel.

Ruth 1:16 But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God.

Joshua 6:25 However, Rahab the harlot and her father’s household and all she had, Joshua spared; and she has lived in the midst of Israel to this day, for she hid the messengers whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

She is even in the genealogy of Jesus, a Gentile, but heir according to promise as it was always was.

Matthew 1:5 Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.

Why create something new?

Ryan: You seem arguing against what the New Testament clearly records: 'the new testament in my blood': which occurs in various passages. The coming of the Spirit to indwell His people in Acts 2 is an established fact. New Testament church distinctives cannot just be dismissed.

 

[Ryan]

With whom is who getting grafted in with in Romans 11? How could Israel being the natural branch, also not be the natural olive tree? Just Romans 11 disproves the basis for a new church.

Ro 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, was grafted in among them, and with them partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Ro 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if you boast, you bear not the root, but the root bears you.

Ro 11:19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”

Ro 11:20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.

Ro 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.

Ro 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

Ro 11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

Ro 11:24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

Ro 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Ro 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “ The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
,
Ro 11:26 For this is My covenant with them When I take away their sins.”

 

[farouk]

Ryan: Good verses teaching humility to believers from Gentile and Jewish backgrounds. Though they hardly disprove Pentecost or the fact that the Lord Jesus taught that it was the New Testament that was in His blood.

In the Acts of the Apostles there is also severe criticism of those who tried to make believers from a Gentile background live like Jews: circumcision was not a requirement; the new believers were clearly not becoming Jews.

 

[Ryan]

Ryan: You seem arguing against what the New Testament clearly records: 'the new testament in my blood': which occurs in various passages. The coming of the Spirit to indwell His people in Acts 2 is an established fact. New Testament church distinctives cannot just be dismissed.

You have provided an incomplete quote and using Acts 2 without any scripture to support it. What do you think was going on in Acts 2? They were celebrating Shavuot, or Pentecost as it's commonly called. Leviticus 23:15-21. Odd eh? This New Testament church was still observing an Old Testament feast. Of course the Holy Spirit came down to indwell in them as this was prophecied.

This was what was spoken of in Jeremiah 31 when he foretold of the New Covenant and Ezekiel 36:27, "I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances."

But where is the introduction of this new church? One cannot do that without taking great liberality with the scriptures.

 

[farouk]

Ryan: 'Upon this rock will I build my church'. A future event.

With respect, if the events of Pentecost, when the came to Spirit indwell, as opposed to came and went as in the Old Testament, are regarded as a continuity among Jews rather than a discontinuity and a new institution among believers from a Jewish and Gentile background, it is truly breathtaking that Acts 2 should be read in this way.

 

[Ryan]

Ryan: Good verses teaching humility to believers from Gentile and Jewish backgrounds. Though they hardly disprove Pentecost or the fact that the Lord Jesus taught that it was the New Testament that was in His blood.

I never said Pentecost didn't happen, the idea a new church was formed apart from Israel is not there at all. That is what I questioned. The New covenant in his blood was made with Israel and Judah as prophecied in Jeremiah 31.

In the Acts of the Apostles there is also severe criticism of those who tried to make believers from a Gentile background live like Jews: circumcision was not a requirement; the new believers were clearly not becoming Jews.

The argument was always about proselytizing Gentiles converting to Judaism to complete their salvation. Not once, did it say disregard God's instructions in the OT. And it never said, one has to be a Jew. But one can live their life in Christ following the OT laws without being a Jew. Following God's laws makes one an obedient servant, not a Jew.

 

[Ryan]

Ryan: 'Upon this rock will I build my church'. A future event.

With respect, if the events of Pentecost, when the came to Spirit indwell, as opposed to came and went as in the Old Testament, are regarded as a continuity among Jews rather than a discontinuity and a new institution among believers from a Jewish and Gentile background, it is truly breathtaking that Acts 2 should be read in this way.

Not sure I understand. Can you explain your thoughts more simpler? I'm a simple guy.

 

[farouk]

I never said Pentecost didn't happen, the idea a new church was formed apart from Israel is not there at all. That is what I questioned. The New covenant in his blood was made with Israel and Judah as prophecied in Jeremiah 31.


The argument was always about proselytizing Gentiles converting to Judaism to complete their salvation. Not once, did it say disregard God's instructions in the OT. And it never said, one has to be a Jew. But one can live their life in Christ following the OT laws without being a Jew. Following God's laws makes one an obedient servant, not a Jew.

The church is not under the law.

Galatians makes this clear.

 

[farouk]

Not sure I understand. Can you explain your thoughts more simpler? I'm a simple guy.

Ryan: 'Upon this rock will I build my church'. A future event. Something new, to be built in the future

With respect, if the events of Pentecost, when the came to Spirit indwell, as opposed to came and went as in the Old Testament, are regarded as continuing something old among Jews rather than starting something different and new among believers from a Jewish and Gentile background, it is truly breathtaking that Acts 2 should be read in this way.

The very epistle to the Hebrews has 'better' as a key word, showing that the old was surpassed by the new, with completeness because of the Person and Word of Christ replacing incompleteness.

 

[Sparkey]

Who is the "older brother" in the parable of the Prodigal Son? Can this Word of God be applied to the time-period between when Jesus was taken up and His return?

See Luke 15:11-32 This is the last of three parables about loss and redemption, following the parable of the Lost Sheep and the parable of the Lost Coin, that Jesus tells after the Pharisees and religious leaders accuse him of welcoming and eating with "sinners". The request of the younger may be seen as insolent, tantamount to wishing his Father were dead. The older son, in contrast, seems to think in terms of "law, merit, and reward. The Father is clearly demonstrating the 1Cor 13 chapter about "love and graciousness."

I know it's a stretch to think this way, a break with traditional thought, if you would, but when we pause and consider Abram, whose name was changed to Abraham, the Father of our Faith, and unto whom was promised that his seed shall be like the stars of heaven and the grains of sand... Are we not all members of the same family?

Sometimes I wonder about things. My thanks to my brothers here who provoke my mind and encourage me to consider such thoughts.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[Ryan]

The church is not under the law.

Galatians makes this clear.

The bible says differently. Galatians, the book that is every dispensationalists safety net, or go to book when all other arguments fail. Galatians was written to uphold the Torah/Law, not to be ignored now as has been taught for so long. To address every issue in Galatians and put it into proper context, would take up way to much space. If one is truly interested in getting a proper perspective on who and why Galatians was written to, Mark Nanos or Tim Hegg have good books and material on it. What else would Peter be writing about in 2 Peter 3:16? What would be hard to understand? What would be distorted? What warning is given about who would be destroyed? This warning is specifically for these hard to understand passages that sound contradictory, specifically in Galatians. If Paul was hard to understand then, how much more harder is he to understand 2000 years later?

Ryan: 'Upon this rock will I build my church'. A future event. Something new, to be built in the future

With respect, if the events of Pentecost, when the came to Spirit indwell, as opposed to came and went as in the Old Testament, are regarded as continuing something old among Jews rather than starting something different and new among believers from a Jewish and Gentile background, it is truly breathtaking that Acts 2 should be read in this way.

The very epistle to the Hebrews has 'better' as a key word, showing that the old was surpassed by the new, with completeness because of the Person and Word of Christ replacing incompleteness.

But you are imposing in scripture something that is not there. There is no new church. It was never prophecied or ever suggested earlier. I don't know why it's breath taking to know that believers continued to observe Shavuot or Pentecost, and we are to continue doing so. Show me as something as important that is the "new church." It cannot be done

Hebrews 8 - 10 is specifically addressing the Levitical system passing away, not anything else. One could now enter the Holy of Holies through Jesus as the mediator. There was no change or annulment of the Sinai Covenant.

 

[Deborah13]

To me Romans 11 explains this and also in the story of the woman seeking Jesus' help for her daughter, "as even the little dogs (puppies) eat the crumbs from the master's table".

Master's table = Israel
little dogs (puppies) = Gentiles

 

[farouk]

The bible says differently. Galatians, the book that is every dispensationalists safety net, or go to book when all other arguments fail. Galatians was written to uphold the Torah/Law, not to be ignored now as has been taught for so long. To address every issue in Galatians and put it into proper context, would take up way to much space. If one is truly interested in getting a proper perspective on who and why Galatians was written to, Mark Nanos or Tim Hegg have good books and material on it. What else would Peter be writing about in 2 Peter 3:16? What would be hard to understand? What would be distorted? What warning is given about who would be destroyed? This warning is specifically for these hard to understand passages that sound contradictory, specifically in Galatians. If Paul was hard to understand then, how much more harder is he to understand 2000 years later?


But you are imposing in scripture something that is not there. There is no new church. It was never prophecied or ever suggested earlier. I don't know why it's breath taking to know that believers continued to observe Shavuot or Pentecost, and we are to continue doing so. Show me as something as important that is the "new church." It cannot be done

Hebrews 8 - 10 is specifically addressing the Levitical system passing away, not anything else. One could now enter the Holy of Holies through Jesus as the mediator. There was no change or annulment of the Sinai Covenant.

Ryan:

You make some very bold statements. You yourself refer to Sinai and to Galatians. Yet Galatians 4.25 makes clear that your statement about Sinai is very inaccurate.

 

[Ryan]

Who is the "older brother" in the parable of the Prodigal Son? Can this Word of God be applied to the time-period between when Jesus was taken up and His return?

See Luke 15:11-32 This is the last of three parables about loss and redemption, following the parable of the Lost Sheep and the parable of the Lost Coin, that Jesus tells after the Pharisees and religious leaders accuse him of welcoming and eating with "sinners". The request of the younger may be seen as insolent, tantamount to wishing his Father were dead. The older son, in contrast, seems to think in terms of "law, merit, and reward. The Father is clearly demonstrating the 1Cor 13 chapter about "love and graciousness."

I know it's a stretch to think this way, a break with traditional thought, if you would, but when we pause and consider Abram, whose name was changed to Abraham, the Father of our Faith, and unto whom was promised that his seed shall be like the stars of heaven and the grains of sand... Are we not all members of the same family?

Sometimes I wonder about things. My thanks to my brothers here who provoke my mind and encourage me to consider such thoughts.

Cordially,
Sparrow

Yes we are all part of the family and the same body. Some doctrines assert there are two separate families. A Rothstein family (Israel) and the Smith family (the church). The bible says there was only one body and that is the RothSmith family if you will. Jew and Gentile one in Messiah, one in the Olive Tree.

 

[Ryan]

To me Romans 11 explains this and also in the story of the woman seeking Jesus' help for her daughter, "as even the little dogs (puppies) eat the crumbs from the master's table".

Master's table = Israel
little dogs (puppies) = Gentiles

Do we agree? Not sure.

 

[farouk]

What does Ephesians mean when Paul speaks of 'the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all' (Ephesians 1). Is he really referring to Israel, or to the church?

Ephesians, is, in fact, a glorious exposition of church truth, rather than of the synagogue.

 

[Deborah13]

Do we agree? Not sure.

I don't know if we agree. I was just saying that Romans 11 and the doggie story helps me to understand the relationship between Israel and Gentile believers.
Just keep writing Ryan, I'm listening.

 

[farouk]

Remember also, that the Epistle to the Hebrews gloriously declares the following about the new and different nature of the New Testament (chapter 12.8-24a):

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]" For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which [voice] they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
(For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
And so terrible was the sight, [that] Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake: )
But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant ... ."


What a glorious declaration of the New Testament believer's privilege![/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Deborah13]

What else would Peter be writing about in 2 Peter 3:16? What would be hard to understand? What would be distorted? What warning is given about who would be destroyed? This warning is specifically for these hard to understand passages that sound contradictory, specifically in Galatians. If Paul was hard to understand then, how much more harder is he to understand 2000 years later?

I had not seen your last post when I posted. I was simply referring to the fact that the gentiles are grafted into the olive tree. That we are adopted in and do not take the place of the Jews.
But this post I do not agree with but I will refrain from commenting. Blessings

 

[Ryan]

Ryan:

You make some very bold statements. You yourself refer to Sinai and to Galatians. Yet Galatians 4.25 makes clear that your statement about Sinai is very inaccurate.

I just lost a bunch of good stuff while typing, to answer Galatians 4:25. Grrr!!! Being Family Day and all, I will respond to this after the family is in bed. There is no doing away with Sinai. Till later.