Questions Concerning Messianic Judaism

[farouk]

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

Just noticed your post; oh okay. Blessings.

 

[Deborah13]

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.

Freed from the consequences of sin under the law, freed from justification by works of the law, justified by faith.

 

[Sparkey]

Is there anyone who has been on this board long enough to recall "The Pork Wars" ?

Essentially, a young lady (Christian) said that she did not eat swine's flesh.
Others said that she was guilty of following the law (and not following Christ).
I thought, "What?"

When one considers the law, is it now a wrongful act?
Is Psalms chapter One a song of worship?

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-Chapter-1/

Let's not renew the "Pork Wars" here. It is not unlawful to refrain from eating swine's flesh. I know of none who have tried to enforce circumcision (to the uncircumcised) and don't think that voluntary respect for the law constitutes a lack of respect for Grace. It is an expression of personal belief and respect. The idea of reattaching the foreskin also has not been mentioned (yet).

27 “The days are coming,†declares the Lord, “when I will plant the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with the offspring of people and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,†declares the Lord. 29 “In those days people will no longer say,

‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
30 Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.

31 “The days are coming,†declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]â€
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,†declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,â€
declares the Lord.

See also Hosea 2:16,23

 

[Sparkey]

Something wise (in my sight):

The Lord spoke to His people through the apostle Peter and used several terms in order to help them appreciate their spiritual position in Christ. He referred to them as a "chosen" or elect" race, as a "holy nation" and as a "people for God's own possession." By God's grace we occupy a very favored position in His universe.

Peter continues by saying, "for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy." (1 Peter 2:10). Christians are referred to as "the people of God" and as having received God's "mercy." This is the result of God's grace and love, not according to our own merit.

But notice something about "the people of God." A very great deal could be said about each of these designations, but I wish to note the phrase in verse 9: "...Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light."

First, a brief grammar lesson in Greek. The word translated "out" is "ek" and the word translated "called" is the word "kalesantos." The Greeks would put them together to form another word, "ekklesia" which means "called out" and refer to an assembly or gathering of people that has been called together. More on that in a moment.

First, it ought to be obvious that it is a very, very important matter to be a part of this "holy nation" of "people for God's own possession" who are "the people of God" and have now "received mercy" when once we were "without mercy." There ought to be no argument there by any believer in God. God has issued the call. Have you answered to become one of those "called out?"

Quoted from http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-1-peter-2-9.htm
The Expository Files: Called Out, 1 Peter 2:9 By Jon W. Quinn

 

[Sparkey]

Guys, thanks for the respectful pause. It is my hope that I've contributed to our meal, shared and prepared in each other, offered to the Lord.
What servant, after preparing a meal, will sit straight away and consume it? Will he not rather wait until his/her Master has eaten?

I hear an admonition from Paul's teaching on this subject. Link to Paul’s illustration of the olive tree in Romans 11 by Ferrell Jenkins.

Jesus makes a similar comparison:
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples” (John 15:1-8).

[Edited after reading Deborah13's compliment]: Thank you for saying "peacemaker" to me. James 3:18 and blessings to you, disciple and beloved of The Christ, our Anointed, and the Vine.

 

[Deborah13]

I for one am really enjoying this thread. I don't see anyone at war Yet.

Both Ryan and farouk are skilled in the Word, I can use the instruction from both.

Just read your's Sparrow, such a peacemaker. Good posts.

 

[Ryan]

Sparrowhawke,

I thank you for your comments and concerns about this discussion. I was not on board to know of the pork wars of what you speak, but I can only imagine what the tone, and maybe the lack of civility on both sides of the camp. I'm not interested in that. Discussing, and sometimes arguing about religion is helpful and fruitful to grow and walk in our faith. But also is keeping ones mouth closed and learning from others is necessary as well. It's how we walk this out that is the biggest thing. If we carry out our conversations in love and sincere desire to share and grow, that is the living out of our faith. Farouk and Deborah13 are on one side, and I'm on the other. We appear to each be grounded in our faith and sincere desire to share it with each other. I don't think none of us will resort to mud slinging, just honest, open and frank dialogue about the Word of God. I believe there are many things Christians can learn from Messianic Jews and Judaism and vice versa. I love this Statement of Faith from the UMJC website (of which I am not a member and not endorsing anyone else to be as well),

"The Jewish tradition serves as the living link that connects us as contemporary Jews to our biblical past and provides resources needed to develop a Messianic Jewish way of life and thought. Furthermore, the Christian theological tradition offers riches of insight into the revelation of the Messiah and His will, and Messianic Jews need to draw upon this wealth. (I Thess. 2:15, Rom. 13:7; Jude 3)"

We have to understand that the bible is a Jewish book, written by Jews. Gaining this understanding and perspective will answer and clarify many of Jesus's teachings, as well as Paul's teachings. Both who lived a Torah observant life. One just a lot better then the other...obviously. I use Germaine Copelands prayer books to help me in my prayer life. Germaine's a Christian, but so what? There is good stuff in there. Messianics have a lot to share as well. We each can be territorial though, and some parties being more aggressive and assertive acting divisively, instead of language that is fruitful and brings unity. I am sometimes guilty of engaging in discussions where there is disagreement, instead of engaging in areas where there is agreement. But everyone wants to be right on the internet, right? I would like to share that Passover is coming up and if one is lead to do so, find a congregation that observes it and participate in it. I'm telling you, it will richly bless you. Speaking from personal experience.

I would like to continue this, but maybe start back to where it really started back on page 3 about who is the church. k?

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrowhawke,

I thank you for your comments and concerns about this discussion. I was not on board to know of the pork wars of what you speak, but I can only imagine what the tone, and maybe the lack of civility on both sides of the camp. I'm not interested in that. Discussing, and sometimes arguing about religion is helpful and fruitful to grow and walk in our faith. But also is keeping ones mouth closed and learning from others is necessary as well. It's how we walk this out that is the biggest thing. If we carry out our conversations in love and sincere desire to share and grow, that is the living out of our faith. Farouk and Deborah13 are on one side, and I'm on the other. We appear to each be grounded in our faith and sincere desire to share it with each other. I don't think none of us will resort to mud slinging, just honest, open and frank dialogue about the Word of God. I believe there are many things Christians can learn from Messianic Jews and Judaism and vice versa. I love this Statement of Faith from the UMJC website (of which I am not a member and not endorsing anyone else to be as well),

"The Jewish tradition serves as the living link that connects us as contemporary Jews to our biblical past and provides resources needed to develop a Messianic Jewish way of life and thought. Furthermore, the Christian theological tradition offers riches of insight into the revelation of the Messiah and His will, and Messianic Jews need to draw upon this wealth. (I Thess. 2:15, Rom. 13:7; Jude 3)"

We have to understand that the bible is a Jewish book, written by Jews. Gaining this understanding and perspective will answer and clarify many of Jesus's teachings, as well as Paul's teachings. Both who lived a Torah observant life. One just a lot better then the other...obviously. I use Germaine Copelands prayer books to help me in my prayer life. Germaine's a Christian, but so what? There is good stuff in there. Messianics have a lot to share as well. We each can be territorial though, and some parties being more aggressive and assertive acting divisively, instead of language that is fruitful and brings unity. I am sometimes guilty of engaging in discussions where there is disagreement, instead of engaging in areas where there is agreement. But everyone wants to be right on the internet, right? I would like to share that Passover is coming up and if one is lead to do so, find a congregation that observes it and participate in it. I'm telling you, it will richly bless you. Speaking from personal experience.

I would like to continue this, but maybe start back to where it really started back on page 3 about who is the church. k?

Thank you for your thoughts here. You've blessed me to see what has been in my prayers, and I'm sure, on the Mind of Christ, our King. Starting back seems good to me. I'd suggest looking at what our Father God had in mind when the decision was made for the Exit from the Garden but I don't want to influence the discussion too much as I'm still learning to be a facilitator, which to me just means, "the good servant".

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I'll start this over.

Who is the church?

The church is an elect people in accordance with the New Covenant, comprising both Jews and Gentiles who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and Redeemer.

 

[YosefHayim]

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. . ."

Is the "rabbinical" law the Talmudic law?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Is the "rabbinical" law the Talmudic law?

It doesn't matter.

We are no longer bound by it as christians.

 

[farouk]

I'll start this over.

Who is the church?

The church is an elect people in accordance with the New Covenant, comprising both Jews and Gentiles who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and Redeemer.

Indeed.

This should be undoubted.

 

[Ryan]

I'll start this over.

Who is the church?

The church is an elect people in accordance with the New Covenant, comprising both Jews and Gentiles who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and Redeemer.

Indeed.

This should be undoubted.

Yes, and is this the same New Covenant that is spoken of in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 that is made with the House of Israel and Judah that always included Gentile participation as per the grafting in of the Olive Tree in Romans 11, of which they were always allowed participation and inclusion with Israel? Gentiles were always grafted in and provisions allowed this to be adopted and heirs into the promises given to Israel. Including land inheritances. Consider these passages:

Joshua 8:33 "All Israel with their elders and officers and their judges were standing on both sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, the stranger as well as the native...."

Joshua 8:35 "There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel <SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP>with the women and the little ones and the strangers who were living among them."

Ezekiel 47:21-23 “So you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. <SUP class=versenum>22 </SUP>You shall divide it by <SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP>lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the <SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP>aliens who stay in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an <SUP class=crossreference value='(C)'></SUP>inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. <SUP class=versenum>23 </SUP>And in the tribe with which the alien stays, there you shall give him his inheritance,” declares the Lord God."

Or, is the church a distinct entity apart from Israel? I submit, the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel as stated in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, not with a separate Gentile entity. But Jesus was just as concerned about unbelieving Gentiles as he was of his own flock and spoke of oneness in him.

John 10:16 "<SUP> </SUP>I have <SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP>other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become <SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP>one flock with <SUP class=crossreference value='(C)'></SUP>one shepherd."

Ephesians 3:6 "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs<SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP> together with Israel, members together of one body,<SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP> and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus."

Is this agreeable?

 

[Ryan]

Is the "rabbinical" law the Talmudic law?

There is a long history of how the Talmud came into existence, and of course disagreements amongst scholars about the origins. But in a nutshell, the Talmud's origins were from what was called the oral Torah. Stories go that the oral Torah began at Mt. Sinai and was legal interpretations of the written Torah that God gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai. It started as case law essentially, and included rabbinical interpretations/commentary of the written Torah. Then included commentary on the commentaries, then before you know it the oral Torah carried more weight then the actual written Torah of which Jesus was often in dispute with the Pharisees and teachers of the day. Not to say he disagreed with everything in the oral Torah or the traditions, but when it took away from the Word of God, and traditions placed higher emphasis over God's written Torah, then he had a problem with that. Here is a link to an article that provides some foundation of the Talmud, and Jesus's thoughts on the traditions of the elders.

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Oral-Torah_Background.pdf

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Yes, and is this the same New Covenant that is spoken of in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 that is made with the House of Israel and Judah that always included Gentile participation as per the grafting in of the Olive Tree in Romans 11, of which they were always allowed participation and inclusion with Israel? Gentiles were always grafted in and provisions allowed this to be adopted and heirs into the promises given to Israel. Including land inheritances. Consider these passages:

Joshua 8:33 "All Israel with their elders and officers and their judges were standing on both sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, the stranger as well as the native...."

Joshua 8:35 "There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel <SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP>with the women and the little ones and the strangers who were living among them."

Ezekiel 47:21-23 “So you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. <SUP class=versenum>22 </SUP>You shall divide it by <SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP>lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the <SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP>aliens who stay in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an <SUP class=crossreference value='(C)'></SUP>inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. <SUP class=versenum>23 </SUP>And in the tribe with which the alien stays, there you shall give him his inheritance,” declares the Lord God."

Or, is the church a distinct entity apart from Israel? I submit, the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel as stated in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, not with a separate Gentile entity. But Jesus was just as concerned about unbelieving Gentiles as he was of his own flock and spoke of oneness in him.

John 10:16 "<SUP> </SUP>I have <SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP>other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become <SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP>one flock with <SUP class=crossreference value='(C)'></SUP>one shepherd."

Ephesians 3:6 "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs<SUP class=crossreference value='(A)'></SUP> together with Israel, members together of one body,<SUP class=crossreference value='(B)'></SUP> and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus."

Is this agreeable?

Ryan, Hebrews 8 tells us that the new covenant replaces the old covenant, making the old covenant obselete.
So why do you go backwards and try to follow the law?
It seems that you are as guilty as gentiles for the separation between us.
And it all starts right here by you refusing to call yourself a christian.

 

[Ryan]

Ryan, Hebrews 8 tells us that the new covenant replaces the old covenant, making the old covenant obselete.

The writer of Hebrews is quoting Jeremiah 31, showing with whom the covenant is made -- the House of Israel and Judah. The fault with the first covenant is that the people strayed from it. So God will renew the first covenant by writing Torah on their hearts this time and not on tablets. Which Law is written on our hearts?

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


This verse comes at the conclusion of two whole chapters devoted to showing the superiority of Jesus's "Melchizedek' priesthood to that of our earthly Levitical priesthood. So what is 'ready to vanish' must be taken in the context of what has just been discussed! It is the earthly temple and the earthly priesthood ready to vanish, to be rendered inoperational (as did occur a few years later in 70 CE). What is about to vanish away here is NOT Torah; it can only mean the just-discussed temple & associated priesthood. Why? "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 16:17 Have heaven and earth ended? The law will not fail! The only thing about to vanish away here is the earthly temple and priesthood.
Now notice that the need for a priesthood doesn't change, merely the means of provision for the priesthood. Torah is upheld, the provision for the priesthood is upheld. But instead of earthly priests we will now have a perfect high priest instead. Likewise with sacrifices -- the need for a sacrifice doesn't fade away (if it did, Jesus would have died in vain since the Torah covenant requiring sacrifice would be made void!) Torah remains valid, what changed was only the means of how the sacrifice was provided. Torah is upheld, God makes provision for both a priest and a sacrifice even though the temple cult is about to disappear.

So why do you go backwards and try to follow the law?

We're not going there.

It seems that you are as guilty as gentiles for the separation between us.

Absolutely not. In what part of my language have I been divisive? I stated biblical facts, supported by scripture. Did I not quote Ephesians 3:6? Romans 11? We are all one body, but recognizing the covenants came through Israel, not a separate entity that was based on an idea "the church" began in Acts 2.

And it all starts right here by you refusing to call yourself a christian.

Oh dear Allen. You outed me. Have you forgotten the message I gave you back some time ago? Here it is as a refresher, and where I am coming from.


Hey allenwynne,

I prefer if I had my way, to just label myself as being a believer in Jesus. I am Jewish and attend a Messianic congregation, so you could call me a Messianic Jew. That is sometimes how I introduce myself to others. Sometimes to establish common ground, or sometimes to illicit thought and further discussion.

My 10 year old daughter asked if we were Jewish or if we were Christian. I told her it doesn't matter what we call ourselves, as long as we love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength, and love one another as we would love ourselves. I told her whatever she wanted to call herself, as long as she loves Jesus more then anything is the most important thing.

Labels like Christian or Messianic Jew or Protestant or Baptist, etc, etc only further serve the separation and the walls that our individual theology put up against each other. I put Christian as a No based on even if one doesn't label themselves as a Christian, they are no less a believer, or have any less passion for serving our Lord. When I pray, I pray for all believers in Jesus, not by the labels we want to place on each other. Labels are what we use to judge each other, and that is something I try to avoid. Hope that answers your question.

**[edited, off topic]**

God Bless and Shalom,
Ryan

Just for clarification though. We have Jewish blood and lineage after my dad did genealogy work and blood tests. Wasn't raised in a Jewish home, but in an evangelical type background and churches we attended. Does this sound as wanting to put up further walls? Even Messianic Jews would say I have no right to call myself a Messianic Jew. But I like Paul's words here in 1 Corinthians 9:22-23 "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak.<SUP class=crossreference value='(AJ)'></SUP> I have become all things to all people<SUP class=crossreference value='(AK)'></SUP> so that by all possible means I might save some.<SUP class=crossreference value='(AL)'></SUP> <SUP class=versenum>23 </SUP>I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

 

[Sparkey]

I hesitate to enter into this discussion too much but can not help but wonder if retaining one's identity as a child of Abraham (father of many), as a descendant of physical Isaac (in Hebrew, Yitzchak, a name derived from 'laughter') and Jacob (Ya'akov whose name was changed from "The Grabber" to "Israel" (Yisrael), meaning "the one who wrestled with G-d" or "the Champion of G-d."), means, and I mean necessarily means, that the ties and connections through the Spirit of Christ seen in both testaments are no longer valid. My thought? "They is valid." And that's what God (who looks at hearts) says.

 

[Ryan]

I hesitate to enter into this discussion too much but can not help but wonder if retaining one's identity as a child of Abraham (father of many), as a descendant of physical Isaac (in Hebrew, Yitzchak, a name derived from 'laughter') and Jacob (Ya'akov whose name was changed from "The Grabber"), means, and I mean necessarily means, that the ties and connections through the Spirit of Christ seen in both testaments are no longer valid. It is valid. That's what God (who looks at hearts) says.

I don't know if I am following you correctly, but I would say all the covenants are valid, if that's the language you are using. If you look at the bible as one long marriage contract and God's desire to be back in relationship with us, requires us to accept and participate in certain things. If you look at covenants as marriage vows, it is easier to understand. God layered covenants on top of one another and built upon previous covenants. It doesn't make any previous covenants obsolete, even though Hebrews 8 alludes to that, of which I addressed that above. Best way I can explain it is you are already married, want to renew your vows, have another ceremony renewing and making better promises based on the previous marriage contract. Does that rended the first marriage contract null and void? No. you have made a new covenant, but based on a previous covenant. The New Covenant does not render previous ones obsolete, but has better promises such as the Holy Spirit and the Law eventually and completely being written on our hearts. Is that where you were going?

And if you were only under one covenant, then Ephesians 2:12 has something interesting to say about that.

"remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants [plural] of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

 

[Sparkey]

Thank you, yes. BTW, Have you read, "Israel, My Beloved," by Kay Arthur?
I've enjoyed reading it and have suggested it to others.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The writer of Hebrews is quoting Jeremiah 31, showing with whom the covenant is made -- the House of Israel and Judah. The fault with the first covenant is that the people strayed from it. So God will renew the first covenant by writing Torah on their hearts this time and not on tablets. Which Law is written on our hearts?

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

You have come to an erroneous conclusion here. You need to read the next chapter, which clearly shows that while the new covenant is better than the old (which as Hebrews 9 shows, was the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant), it does not negate either. This fact renders the rest of your post off the mark as to what is being discussed.