Questions Concerning Messianic Judaism

[farouk]

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.

...and not just verse 25, the whole context makes clear the difference between the Old and the New.

 

[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.

You need to look at the entire book to understand Galatians. Also understanding Paul was a Pharisee who never, ever taught contrary, against or advocated for a non observance of the Torah. Consider the following:

Acts 24:14 I believe everything that agrees with the Torah and that is written in the Prophets.


Acts 25:8 I have done nothing wrong against the Torah of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.


Romans 7:1 Do you not know, brothers - for I am speaking to men who know the Torah - that the Torah has authority over a man only as long as he lives?


Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify [destroy, abolish] the Torah by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold [stand on, establish] the Torah.


Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past [The Torah and the Prophets] was written to teach us.

This doesn't sound like someone who disagreed with, or questioned the Sinai Covenant with the believers faith. To even prove he was not walking contrary to God's Torah, he and 4 others completed a Nazarite vow of which he paid the expenses. This included animal sacrifices as that is what a Nazirite vow consisted of. Acts 21:20-24, Numbers 6. Ever there was ever a time to back off and say "no way Jose" that stuff is history, that would have been the time. So he was either the biggest hypocrite this side of Christ, or he was the most Torah observant Jew since Christ. I am personally taking the latter option.

Galatians 4:21 – 23 "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise;"

Under the law has been interpreted as one following the Law of Moses, and Israel or the Jews, being given it till something better came along. Namely Christ. But is that what this is saying? As in Galatians 3, he is using an allegory to make a point.

Abraham and Sarah began to lose their trust in God’s words and soon took it upon themselves to establish this promise by their own works and by their own ways. Abraham, in a scene similar to Adam in the garden, listens to his wife, does not trust God and produces a child, Ishmael, by means of a maid named Hagar. This son, because he was produced by works rather than trust, could not be Abraham’s heir, because he was not produced by relationship through trust, or by faith. The seed of faith was through Isaac because his birth was the result of Abraham and Sarah's trust in their 'Father' God, and so children of faith are produced by children of faith. Inheritance is not earned, but acquired by birth and given by promise.

Galatians 4:24–26 "Which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, bearing children for bondage. who is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

What is thought of the two covenants that are spoken here has been taught as the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant. But that is incorrect. The covenants spoken of here and in Galatians 3 is the Abrahamic and Sinai covenant. If the covenantal relationship of trust is established first, then obedience to the law given on Mount Sinai will distinguish you from all other peoples. If the Law of Moses is sought after without the relationship, then the natural result is bondage, because one is seeking righteousness outside of relationship. And it is not because the law itself is bondage, but because we fail to keep the law. THE LAW DID NOT DELIVER ISRAEL FROM EGYPT! The law was given after they were delivered, and after the trust-based relationship was established.

Hagar and Mount Sinai are synonymous to the Jerusalem that NOW IS. A cursory reading of the gospels will reveal that the Jerusalem of Jesus’ time was dominated by the Pharisees and Sadducees: two 'Jewish' sects that represented the very essence of what Mount Sinai without relationship produces. The basis for being a citizen of the 'kingdom of heaven' was no longer rooted in the redeeming blood of the sacrifice, but rather strict adherence to the 'rabbinical' view of the law, legalism. (119 Ministries)

And the Jerusalem from above is spoken of in Hebrews 12:22-23 "But ye are come unto Mount Zion, 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 first-born, having been written in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect. . ."

 

[farouk]

You need to look at the entire book to understand Galatians. Also understanding Paul was a Pharisee who never, ever taught contrary, against or advocated for a non observance of the Torah. Consider the following:

Acts 24:14 I believe everything that agrees with the Torah and that is written in the Prophets.


Acts 25:8 I have done nothing wrong against the Torah of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.


Romans 7:1 Do you not know, brothers - for I am speaking to men who know the Torah - that the Torah has authority over a man only as long as he lives?


Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify [destroy, abolish] the Torah by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold [stand on, establish] the Torah.


Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past [The Torah and the Prophets] was written to teach us.

This doesn't sound like someone who disagreed with, or questioned the Sinai Covenant with the believers faith. To even prove he was not walking contrary to God's Torah, he and 4 others completed a Nazarite vow of which he paid the expenses. This included animal sacrifices as that is what a Nazirite vow consisted of. Acts 21:20-24, Numbers 6. Ever there was ever a time to back off and say "no way Jose" that stuff is history, that would have been the time. So he was either the biggest hypocrite this side of Christ, or he was the most Torah observant Jew since Christ. I am personally taking the latter option.

Galatians 4:21 – 23 "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise;"

Under the law has been interpreted as one following the Law of Moses, and Israel or the Jews, being given it till something better came along. Namely Christ. But is that what this is saying? As in Galatians 3, he is using an allegory to make a point.

Abraham and Sarah began to lose their trust in God’s words and soon took it upon themselves to establish this promise by their own works and by their own ways. Abraham, in a scene similar to Adam in the garden, listens to his wife, does not trust God and produces a child, Ishmael, by means of a maid named Hagar. This son, because he was produced by works rather than trust, could not be Abraham’s heir, because he was not produced by relationship through trust, or by faith. The seed of faith was through Isaac because his birth was the result of Abraham and Sarah's trust in their 'Father' God, and so children of faith are produced by children of faith. Inheritance is not earned, but acquired by birth and given by promise.

Galatians 4:24–26 "Which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, bearing children for bondage. who is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

What is thought of the two covenants that are spoken here has been taught as the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant. But that is incorrect. The covenants spoken of here and in Galatians 3 is the Abrahamic and Sinai covenant. If the covenantal relationship of trust is established first, then obedience to the law given on Mount Sinai will distinguish you from all other peoples. If the Law of Moses is sought after without the relationship, then the natural result is bondage, because one is seeking righteousness outside of relationship. And it is not because the law itself is bondage, but because we fail to keep the law. THE LAW DID NOT DELIVER ISRAEL FROM EGYPT! The law was given after they were delivered, and after the trust-based relationship was established.

Hagar and Mount Sinai are synonymous to the Jerusalem that NOW IS. A cursory reading of the gospels will reveal that the Jerusalem of Jesus’ time was dominated by the Pharisees and Sadducees: two 'Jewish' sects that represented the very essence of what Mount Sinai without relationship produces. The basis for being a citizen of the 'kingdom of heaven' was no longer rooted in the redeeming blood of the sacrifice, but rather strict adherence to the 'rabbinical' view of the law, legalism. (119 Ministries)

And the Jerusalem from above is spoken of in Hebrews 12:22-23 "But ye are come unto Mount Zion, 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 first-born, having been written in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect. . ."

Ryan:

Actually, the verse from Galatians which you just quoted says: "For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children."

So Paul is hardly teaching believers in the Lord Jesus, under grace, to go back to legal bondage, symbolized by Hagar, Sinai and the earthly Jerusalem.

The opposite, in fact.

 

[Ryan]

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.

I did a study awhile ago on the use of synagogues in the bible, and this is what I found.

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew ‘edah’ was translated using the Greek word ‘sunagoge’. Both words were interchangeable in the Greek:

5712 hde `edah, a stated assemblage a family or crowd:--assembly, company, congregation, multitude,
#4864 sunagwgh sunagoge, soon-ag-o-gay' an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish "synagogue"

Exodus 35:1 And Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them, These are the words which Jehovah hath commanded, that ye should do them.

35:1 και συνηθροισεν μωυσης πασαν συναγωγην(#4864) υιων ισραηλ και ειπεν προς αυτους ουτοι οι λογοι ους ειπεν κυριος ποιησαι αυτους

Notice here in Acts the same root word, sunagoge.
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled (sunagogoe) together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.

Acts 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: (sunagogue)
The same Greek word they use in Acts, is the same root word they use in 300 BC. Now what do we see suddenly in James?

James 2:1, 2 For if there come unto your assembly (sunagogue) a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

Did you notice that they changed the word from sunagoge, to assembly cause the translators didn’t want to think the early church was meeting in the synagogue? So now the translators are going to call it an assembly. When you read the word assembly you don’t even realize that it’s the same Greek root word they are translating as synagogue everywhere else, but the translators don’t want you to think synagogue, so they put in same ideas in assembly. See the play on words? Let’s go to Revelations.

Revelations 2:9 but are of the synagogue (sunagogue) of Satan.
Now you have the translation saying synagogue. What’s the Greek word? Sunagogue. Why didn’t they put assembly of Satan there? The connotation is that synagogues are bad. Can you see the bias there through the bible?

Paul bypassed more populated areas, and went to communities that had a stronger Jewish presence. Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile." Paul always went to the Jew first to win them over and preach the long awaited Messiah had now come, then when he was done he went to the Gentiles. But he always taught in Jewish synagogues.

Acts 17:4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.

Acts 17:17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.

 

[Ryan]

Ryan:

Actually, the verse from Galatians which you just quoted says: "For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children."

So Paul is hardly teaching believers in the Lord Jesus, under grace, to go back to legal bondage, symbolized by Hagar, Sinai and the earthly Jerusalem.

The opposite, in fact.

Have you read Genesis lately? You just made the point Paul was trying to make.

"So Paul is hardly teaching believers in the Lord Jesus, under grace, to go back to legal bondage, symbolized by Hagar, Sinai and the earthly Jerusalem." That is exactly it. Works outside of faith will not get you the promises based on faith and trust. You just agreed with me. Can you see that?

 

[farouk]

I did a study awhile ago on the use of synagogues in the bible, and this is what I found.

In the Septuagint, the Hebrew ‘edah’ was translated using the Greek word ‘sunagoge’. Both words were interchangeable in the Greek:

5712 hde `edah, a stated assemblage a family or crowd:--assembly, company, congregation, multitude,
#4864 sunagwgh sunagoge, soon-ag-o-gay' an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish "synagogue"

Exodus 35:1 And Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them, These are the words which Jehovah hath commanded, that ye should do them.

35:1 και συνηθροισεν μωυσης πασαν συναγωγην(#4864) υιων ισραηλ και ειπεν προς αυτους ουτοι οι λογοι ους ειπεν κυριος ποιησαι αυτους

Notice here in Acts the same root word, sunagoge.
Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled (sunagogoe) together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.

Acts 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: (sunagogue)
The same Greek word they use in Acts, is the same root word they use in 300 BC. Now what do we see suddenly in James?

James 2:1, 2 For if there come unto your assembly (sunagogue) a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

Did you notice that they changed the word from sunagoge, to assembly cause the translators didn’t want to think the early church was meeting in the synagogue? So now the translators are going to call it an assembly. When you read the word assembly you don’t even realize that it’s the same Greek root word they are translating as synagogue everywhere else, but the translators don’t want you to think synagogue, so they put in same ideas in assembly. See the play on words? Let’s go to Revelations.

Revelations 2:9 but are of the synagogue (sunagogue) of Satan.
Now you have the translation saying synagogue. What’s the Greek word? Sunagogue. Why didn’t they put assembly of Satan there? The connotation is that synagogues are bad. Can you see the bias there through the bible?

Paul bypassed more populated areas, and went to communities that had a stronger Jewish presence. Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile." Paul always went to the Jew first to win them over and preach the long awaited Messiah had now come, then when he was done he went to the Gentiles. But he always taught in Jewish synagogues.

Acts 17:4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.

Acts 17:17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.

So you go to the Revelation passage about the synagogue of Satan to 'prove' that Pentecost didn't mark the beginning of the church dispensation? Wow, I've never heard your position explained before in such an unusual way....

 

[farouk]

Have you read Genesis lately? You just made the point Paul was trying to make.

"So Paul is hardly teaching believers in the Lord Jesus, under grace, to go back to legal bondage, symbolized by Hagar, Sinai and the earthly Jerusalem." That is exactly it. Works outside of faith will not get you the promises based on faith and trust. You just agreed with me. Can you see that?

Ryan:

...and I would have thought that Sinai linked with bondage and Hagar meant that Paul wasn't after all taking people back to the law.

 

[Ryan]

So you go to the Revelation passage about the synagogue of Satan to 'prove' that Pentecost didn't mark the beginning of the church dispensation? Wow, I've never heard your position explained before in such an unusual way....

Pentecost didn't mark the beginning of the "church" age. I was pointing out there were no churches back then. They were taught in synagogues, known as the "called out ones." There was no dispensationalism. It is not biblical as grace always abounded from Day 1 since creation. People were always saved by faith in the promise that was, and has come.

OT believers >>>>>CROSS<<<<<< NT believers

They were saved by believing in what was to come, just like we were saved by what had come. They looked ahead to the cross, we look back to the cross. They looked ahead to the shadow of the Messiah in the Torah, we look behind at the revealing of the Messiah.

 

[Deborah13]

Paul did observe the Law, however I have read that none of what he did had to do with his justification for salvation. If he had done this is would have been seen as a hypocrite and liar.
Galatians 5:1-4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Walk by the Spirit

5 <sup class="footnote" value='[a]'></sup><sup class="crossreference" value='(A)'></sup>It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore <sup class="crossreference" value='(B)'></sup>keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a <sup class="crossreference" value='(C)'></sup>yoke of slavery.
<sup class="versenum hide">2 </sup>Behold I, <sup class="crossreference" value='(D)'></sup>Paul, say to you that if you receive <sup class="crossreference" value='(E)'></sup>circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. <sup class="versenum hide">3 </sup>And I <sup class="crossreference" value='(F)'></sup>testify again to every man who receives <sup class="crossreference" value='(G)'></sup>circumcision, that he is under obligation to <sup class="crossreference" value='(H)'></sup>keep the whole Law. <sup class="versenum hide">4 </sup>You have been severed from Christ, you who <sup class="footnote" value='[b]'></sup>are seeking to be justified by law; you have <sup class="crossreference" value='(I)'></sup>fallen from grace.

Clearly he must have been talking to the Jews when he said this as the Gentiles were never under the Law.

 

[farouk]

Pentecost didn't mark the beginning of the "church" age. I was pointing out there were no churches back then. They were taught in synagogues, known as the "called out ones." There was no dispensationalism. It is not biblical as grace always abounded from Day 1 since creation. People were always saved by faith in the promise that was, and has come.

OT believers >>>>>CROSS<<<<<< NT believers

They were saved by believing in what was to come, just like we were saved by what had come. They looked ahead to the cross, we look back to the cross. They looked ahead to the shadow of the Messiah in the Torah, we look behind at the revealing of the Messiah.

Acts 2 refers to the beginning of the church at Pentecost. The word church doesn't refer to a building.

Ryan, let me tell you something. For days we have been talking at cross purposes, and to boil it down it's because you seem to have a problem with the word 'New' in 'New Testament'. So if this conversation continues, we are likely to continue to go round and round in circles.

 

[Ryan]

Ryan:

...and I would have thought that Sinai linked with bondage and Hagar meant that Paul wasn't after all taking people back to the law.

I would suggest going back and read Genesis again. Hagar (works) was not who the promise was made through Sarah (faith). Is that clear?

 

[farouk]

I would suggest going back and read Genesis again. Hagar (works) was not who the promise was made through Sarah (faith). Is that clear?

...and Galatians links Sinai (i.e., the law), symbolized by Hagar, as bondage. So being under the bondage of the law is not what Christians ought to want, logically.

 

[farouk]

Paul did observe the Law, however I have read that none of what he did had to do with his justification for salvation. If he had done this is would have been seen as a hypocrite and liar.
Galatians 5:1-4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Walk by the Spirit

5 <sup class="footnote" value="[a]"></sup><sup class="crossreference" value="(A)"></sup>It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore <sup class="crossreference" value="(B)"></sup>keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a <sup class="crossreference" value="(C)"></sup>yoke of slavery.
<sup class="versenum hide">2 </sup>Behold I, <sup class="crossreference" value="(D)"></sup>Paul, say to you that if you receive <sup class="crossreference" value="(E)"></sup>circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. <sup class="versenum hide">3 </sup>And I <sup class="crossreference" value="(F)"></sup>testify again to every man who receives <sup class="crossreference" value="(G)"></sup>circumcision, that he is under obligation to <sup class="crossreference" value="(H)"></sup>keep the whole Law. <sup class="versenum hide">4 </sup>You have been severed from Christ, you who <sup class="footnote" value="[b]"></sup>are seeking to be justified by law; you have <sup class="crossreference" value="(I)"></sup>fallen from grace.

Clearly he must have been talking to the Jews when he said this as the Gentiles were never under the Law.

Deborah:

I basically agree. Paul wasn't under bondage to the law, of course.

Good post.

Blessings.

 

[Ryan]

Acts 2 refers to the beginning of the church at Pentecost. The word church doesn't refer to a building.

Ryan, let me tell you something. For days we have been talking at cross purposes, and to boil it down it's because you seem to have a problem with the word 'New' in 'New Testament'. So if this conversation continues, we are likely to continue to go round and round in circles.

The most uninspired 2 pages in the bible. What are they? Rip out the page that says Old Testament and the page that says New Testament. Two pages that don't even belong there. You keep saying this church started at Pentecost, but failed to provide scriptural verses that states so.

 

[farouk]

Ryan: 'This cup is the New Testament in my blood'.

See Matthew 26.28.

Also Mark 14.24.

Also Luke 22.20.

Also 1 Corinthians 11.25.

And I referred to Pentecost in Acts 2.

 

[Ryan]

Paul did observe the Law, however I have read that none of what he did had to do with his justification for salvation. If he had done this is would have been seen as a hypocrite and liar.
Galatians 5:1-4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Walk by the Spirit

5 <sup class="footnote" value='[a]'></sup><sup class="crossreference" value='(A)'></sup>It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore <sup class="crossreference" value='(B)'></sup>keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a <sup class="crossreference" value='(C)'></sup>yoke of slavery.
<sup class="versenum hide">2 </sup>Behold I, <sup class="crossreference" value='(D)'></sup>Paul, say to you that if you receive <sup class="crossreference" value='(E)'></sup>circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. <sup class="versenum hide">3 </sup>And I <sup class="crossreference" value='(F)'></sup>testify again to every man who receives <sup class="crossreference" value='(G)'></sup>circumcision, that he is under obligation to <sup class="crossreference" value='(H)'></sup>keep the whole Law. <sup class="versenum hide">4 </sup>You have been severed from Christ, you who <sup class="footnote" value='[b]'></sup>are seeking to be justified by law; you have <sup class="crossreference" value='(I)'></sup>fallen from grace.

Clearly he must have been talking to the Jews when he said this as the Gentiles were never under the Law.

That was Paul's whole point. One could not be justified and merit their salvation by observance of the law. That is a given.
This same pattern is introduced from the beginning. Adam is created as a 'son of God' and then given rules. Noah found 'grace' in the sight of God and then was given instructions to build an ark. Abraham 'believed' in God and then was given the covenant of circumcision. Very simply, the covenant in Exodus 19:5 is a promise that Israel's obedience to the voice of God will separate them from all other peoples of the world. Works of the law, standing alone, cannot deliver. If the covenant on this Mount is depended upon to redeem you, which it is not designed to do, then you are in bondage, for you cannot satisfy it.

Understanding what "under law" means is critical. The Hebrew word, torah (תורה), is derived from a root that was used in the realm of archery, yareh (ירה). Yareh means to shoot an arrow in order to hit a mark. The mark or target, of course, was the object at which the archer was aiming. Consequently, torah, one of the nouns derived from this root, is, therefore, the arrow aimed at the mark, The target is the truth about God and how one relates to Him. The torah is, therefore, in the strict sense instruction designed to teach us the truth about God. Torah means direction,teaching, instruction,or doctrine.

So when one says they are not under the law, that means they are acting outside of faith to obtain their salvation. So when someone says Christ freed them from the law, does it makes sense he freed them from his own teachings and instructions? Doesn't add up to me.

 

[Sparkey]

It may take some time to review this thread, kindly pause your contributions for a couple three minutes as I submerge into it.

Back in a bit... Sparrowhawke

 

[Ryan]

Ryan: 'This cup is the New Testament in my blood'.

See Matthew 26.28.

Also Mark 14.24.

Also Luke 22.20.

Also 1 Corinthians 11.25.

And I referred to Pentecost in Acts 2.

Where is the covenantal language then? Who are the parties? What are their obligations? What are the promises? Is there a New Covenant outside of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 I am missing?

 

[Deborah13]

Pentecost didn't mark the beginning of the "church" age. I was pointing out there were no churches back then. They were taught in synagogues, known as the "called out ones." There was no dispensationalism. It is not biblical as grace always abounded from Day 1 since creation. People were always saved by faith in the promise that was, and has come.

OT believers >>>>>CROSS<<<<<< NT believers

They were saved by believing in what was to come, just like we were saved by what had come. They looked ahead to the cross, we look back to the cross. They looked ahead to the shadow of the Messiah in the Torah, we look behind at the revealing of the Messiah.

So when do you believe the church age began, mid or end of Acts? What do you think about the books of the 4 Gospels, Peter, Jude, James, 1,2,3, John all written to the Jews only, not the Gentiles?

 

[farouk]

Where is the covenantal language then? Who are the parties? What are their obligations? What are the promises? Is there a New Covenant outside of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 I am missing?

The Lord Jesus is speaking to His disciples, who were to bear the Gospel to Jew and Gentile and who would form the church, of the New Testament in His blood. It is plainly there.