11/28/2023 Are Christians Obligated to Keep Kosher?SKUNK: What is a Messianic Christian? RUTH: that's a question that you'll get a variety of answers to. To some, a Messianic Christian is a Jew who has come to the Protestant faith. To me, it is simply the fact that as a believer in Yashuah Ha Mashiac (Jesus the Messiah), I strive to live as HE live and obey HIS commands as they apply to me. I refer to myself as "Torah Observant" rather than Messianic because Messianic usually is seen as someone from the tribe of Judah, or "Jewish". I am a Gentile as far as I know, though I could technically belong to one of the other tribes. The big thing is we observe the instructions in torah as we are able and as they're applicable. The most obvious visible things are we generally keep sabbath on the sabbath day and we eat biblically clean. SKUNK: So a Messianic Christian is someone who thinks dietary restrictions and the Jewish festivals and sabbaths are moral commandments that they must abide by? MIKE: Biblical, hebrew, God's. Not jewish. SKUNK: you don't recognize the laws of the Mosaic covenant as Jewish? RUTH: No. They predate Sinai, and even if you only count when they were given at Sinai, they were given to the whole Hebrew Nation, which included all 12 tribes of Israel (not just the tribe of "Jew-Da") AND the Non Israelites who left Egypt with them and were Grafted In. The Torah is not a Jewish law, it is G-d's Law. SKUNK: the law i.e. the Torah was given through Moses to Israel. There is no predating of the law before Moses. there are obvious allusions in the Mosaic covenant to earlier practices regarding animal sacrifices. And the moral law of "do not murder" is written on everyone's heart, Paul says in Romans. But you are talking about following the Torah, which is the law given to theocratic Israel that covers not only personal moral duties, but also civil interactions, penalties under the state laws, dietary restrictions and clothing laws, and of course Sabbaths. Again, i'm trying only to understand what your thing is. RUTH: Pretty much, yup. Obviously since we don't live in a country that follows YHVHs Laws we're not going to follow the civil laws (like stoning etc) but some of those are still valuable in person to person interactions. But yeah, unless there's a reason we literally can not follow a command, we follow them to the best of our ability. JON: There is no distinction between civil, dietary, and moral laws as Protestants attempt to categorize them. The same Lawgiver gave them all to the same Moses at the same time, or at different places multiple times but connected and mixed together. SKUNK: I am only recognizing the categories of laws as they apply to different spheres. Some are personal moral duties, while some are given to the state as to what to do with a certain crime. Yes, Yahweh gave them all. Some are applicable explicitly within the sphere of a theocratic Israel. Some are applicable to the priesthood system, which God Himself put an end when He rent the temple veil top to bottom. Do you agree? The laws of the Mosaic covenant as they relate to theocratic Israel and the Aaronic priesthood all served a purpose: to keep Israel pure from idolatry, and to point to the Messiah. When the Messiah came, He Himself put an end to many laws therein. Clearly, these laws are not binding to all people at all times. It is not wrong to practice Kosher today. But you are wrong to think Christians who don't practice Kosher are morally inferior to you. Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking. JON: But when it comes to whether they abolished or not, there is no distinction because they come from the same Lawgiver. James drew the same conclusion. Jesus spent his whole ministry teaching people to follow the law of Moses, despite the teaching of their religious leaders. Then God gives Peter vision, which Peter interpreted as the dividing wall of Pharisees tradition that kept Jews and non-separated was now abolished just as Paul states in Colossians chapter 2 that the laws contained in human ordinances that kept the two apart have now been abolished and nailed to the cross. Peter‘s own interpretation of his own vision was that he should not call any person unclean. This is the abolition of the dividing wall that was erected by human tradition, and addition to the law of God, given to Moses, nowhere in the law of God, will you ever find the separation between Jew and non Jew Throughout the Old Testament, anyone could become a Hebrew Israelite. You see this with Rahab. You see this with Ruth. You see this with divisions of David’s armies. You see this with the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt. In the Prophets you find that in the new Jerusalem and future inheritance non-Jewish people who are grafted in, will have land in Israel. You stated that Messiah put an end to some of the laws. Which ones? SKUNK: well, starting with the dietary laws in the vision of Peter. I wonder why this is such a dispute when the NT writers affirm this directly with no equivocation. It was God Himself who tore the veil of the temple from top to bottom, meaning that God put an end to the Aaronic priesthood system. Shouldn't that tell you that God makes distinction in His laws? Many laws of Moses explicitly relate to the priesthood system, which are invalid in the Church Age. James 2:10 is talking about the moral aspects of the law, sum of which he calls the "royal law," which is the two greatest commandments. James is not talking about priesthood laws. Again, is this not the distinction? MIKE: If God put an end to the sacrificial system why did Paul participate? Why did Peter and John partake in public services at the temple? SKUNK: Not "if" but "since." Jesus Himself spoke of the end of the temple system, "Not one stone here will be left upon another." Again, God tore the veil of the temple. JON: You stated that the laws contained in ordinances in Colossians 2 refers to the law of Moses. Which of the laws of Moses separate the Jews and non Jews? Which prevent non Jews from associating with Jews? Which prevent converts? Can you list them? Which Law of Moses prevents Jews from eating with non Jews? Where is the commandment to constantly remain ritually clean so you can’t associate with non Jews? Your claim cannot be supported. Clearly. However, I CAN point to several instances where Jewish tradition did all these things. Looking at it linguistically, why did Paul specify laws contained in ordinances (dogmas)? Why not just laws of Moses or laws of God? Again, I’m waiting for your examples of the law of Moses that separates Jews from associating with non Jews or preventing converts. SKUNK: With respect, your series of questions tells me that you haven't carefully thought through the social implications of the Moses' laws relating to food. You answer me this: if your neighbour invites you to a cookout with pork, would you go and break bread? I never suggested that Mosaic laws prevented Jews from making Gentile converts, or associating with Gentiles. I am only recognizing that some of the laws naturally prevented the Jews from assimilating the Gentile lifestyle, so that Israel may be a peculiar people and a witness for Yahweh. This is an important difference. Again, it's Ephesians 2 you mean to refer to, not Colossians 2. The context of Ephesians 2 shows that Paul is talking about the laws of Moses that prevented Jews from easily socializing with Gentiles. The idea that the "law of commandments" is referring to the man-made traditions of Pharisees does not address the fact that the external laws of Moses themselves prevent Jews from associating with Gentiles. MIKE: It's astounding that you're telling someone (plus a group of us) who formerly were in all manner of walks of mainstream Christianity we haven't carefully thought out the social implications of living as a peculiar people in the manner God desires his chosen people to live. Once again, no precept given in the torah prevented fellowship of gentile and hebrew. The instructions given by the Jerusalem council were to foster table fellowship. Those were the minimum requirements to be together and share a meal. Just as we have very low expectations of new converts and know they will learn as they grow, so it was with Acts 15. Hence the "for Moses has been preached" etc etc. The new believers would learn as they went along. Regarding your reference to "commandments" in ephesians 2, same word in John 11:57 referring to the pharisees orders pertaining to Jesus, not specifically to torah commands or mitzvot. Acts 17:15, same word when Paul commanded Silas and Timothy to come to him, again, not a word specific to God's torah. Ordinances is translated similarly, extrabiblical man made commands or laws, and translated as such throughout the NT. SKUNK: I don't think you understand what I was actually saying: You are not thinking through what kind of social impact the external laws of Moses had on the interactions between Jews and Gentiles. Their worship was different, their diet was different, their festival days were different, what they could do on certain days were different. These laws served a very real purpose of keeping Israel separated from the Gentile world, making them peculiar and special. If you recognized this purpose of Mosaic laws, then you wouldn't say Mosaic laws didn't ever separate Jews from Gentiles, because that was the whole purpose. You certainly wouldn't give me a disingenuous answer as Ruth has, saying, "I could still fellowship at my neighbour's pork cookout. I'll just not eat," as if that addresses the very real social barrier put up by Moses. I do not understand your motivation in not willing to recognize this obvious social implication of the Mosaic laws, because if you did, you would be able to understand Ephesians 2:15, among other NT passages relating to the end of external Mosaic laws in the Church Age. You would also be able to focus on actual spiritual growth in Christ and service, rather than being preoccupied with external, temporal things such as what to eat or drink, which have no eternal value. The Jerusalem Council was held because they wanted to address the heresy of the Judaizers who were insisting that the Gentiles had to obey the external Mosaic laws. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you make it sound like the Council is employing some cult-like tactic, and slowly roping the new Gentile converts in to coming under the full expectations of keeping the law of Moses - which, by the way, they repeatedly call "a burden." The only injunctions the Jerusalem Council gives to the Gentiles, in complete accordance to the word of God, as supported by Paul's letters, are: abstaining from sexual immorality, and to not eat things that will cause a stumbling block to Jewish or Gentile believers. Again, the whole purpose of the Council was to stop the kind of unnecessary bondage to external Mosaic laws some Jewish believers wanted to lay on Gentile believers, because those laws were nullified. Yes, you are right. It is not a word specific to God's Torah, as you have picked out two instances in which it wasn't used that way. This means that the context of Eph 2 is what should inform the meaning of the word. Clearly, the death of Jesus Christ which inaugurates the New Covenant does not abolish the man-made traditions of Pharisees which was completely disregarded by Jesus in the first place, but does abolish the laws of Moses which have no place in the Church. Otherwise, you would obviously be unable to accept Jesus' words either, "Kill and eat." I have no issue with anyone who wants to practice the ceremonial laws of Moses, such as the Passover feast, or eat Kosher, as long as they understand that their external regulations do not commend them to God and that they are not morally superior to those who do not practice Kosher. I know that in the Millennial kingdom, many of the feasts will be re-instituted. JON: Paul is not referring to the law but the law of commandments contained in ordinances. These are dogma. Dogma is specific to human opinion or tradition. What was nailed to the cross? What is the dividing wall? Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 do not refer to the Law of God, but to the customs of the Jews, as the Greek word used is δόγμα (dogma), translated decree and ordinance. In Ephesians 2, it is clear that Yeshua abolished the dogma that separated Jews from non-Jews as there was no Law of God separating Jews and non-Jews. Yeshua both lived and died to communicate this message, so how can we misunderstand Paul so grossly? Ephesians 2:14-15 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances (δόγμα), so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace. Paul specifically added "contained in ordinances" to distinguish from the Law of God. There was no Law of God stating that Jews and non-Jews must be separated. This was Jewish tradition from the religious elite, the Pharisees who stayed in a state of ritual purity their whole life even though the Law of God does not require it. Colossians 2 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Messiah. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees (δόγμα) against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge [about following dogmas] in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day – 17 things which are a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Messiah. 20 If you have died with Messiah to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees (δόγμα), such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use) – in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. Did Paul list laws from Moses? Or traditions from the fathers? Which is he referring to when he says they are of no value? Is he stating the law of God has no value? As Paul states in Romans, May it never be. Antinomians have no right to judge anyone about how they keep the Sabbath or new moons, or what to eat according to the Law of God. Paul is not writing to lawless individuals in Colossians. He's writing to the church at Colossae, who historically kept the Law of God until 250AD, over 100 years after Paul wrote this document. He's writing to the faithful and lawful individuals about how those who keep Jewish traditions and dogmas cannot judge them on HOW they keep the Sabbath. He leaves them free to keep the Sabbath as ONLY the Law of God requires. In order to have the antinomian views people hold, they have to presuppose that the Law of God was abolished before reading the New Testament in order to interpret the verses in Paul the way that they do. If we presuppose that the Law of God is everlasting, if we take the Prophets literally that the Law of God will be in full force during the future Kingdom and New Jerusalem, then we cannot come to antinomian views through the New Testament. LAWS IN TORAH Greek: νόμος (nomos) Meaning: that which is assigned, law, Law, laws, principle Leviticus 20:25-26 (no law about washing hands) You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I, Yehovah, am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine. Exodus 20:8 (no law about carrying things) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Leviticus 19:34 (non-Jews can stay with Jews) The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am Yehovah your God. DECREES FOLLOWED BY THE PHARISEES Greek: δόγμα dogma Meaning: an opinion, a public decree, decrees, ordinances Mark 7:3-4 (tradition of washing hands) For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots. John 5:10 (tradition about carrying things) So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet.” John 4:9 (non-Jews cannot stay with Jews) Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) SKUNK: You are not reading either Colossians 2 or Ephesians 2 correctly, making an issue out of the word "dogma" but reading your own speculation into the word, and also disregarding all the things that go on in the NT. Your interpretations are easily refuted. Again, the question is: Does the NT abolish the external laws of Moses? First, Colossians 2 warns Christians against Legalism, not Antinomianism. Starting from Col 2:10, Paul affirms that Christians are saved through Christ. "You were dead in your transgressions." What the topic is regarding salvation from sins against the law of Moses, which is why he says the "certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us has been nailed to the cross." I do not know if I must remind you that Jesus did not atone for His people's sins against man-made traditions? He did not. Jesus died to atone for his people's sins against the law of God, the law of Moses. "THEREFORE," Paul says, "we are not to be taken captive by philosophy according to the tradition of men," verse 8, and "no one is to act as a your judge in regard to "food or drink or festival or a new moon or a Sabbath, which are mere shadow of what is to come, but the body belongs to Christ." Who these men who are "judging" and enticing people to "tradition of men" are plain as day, and they are not "Antinomians" as you say; far from it. Antinomians do not "judge"; Legalists do. They were pushing some man-made traditions onto Christians, traditions which are clearly tied somehow to the laws of Moses -- because they relate to legitimate laws of Moses relating to "food or drink, festival, new moon, Sabbath" -- which would identify these Legalists as people who are closely tied to Pharisees. The basis of Paul's refuting their legalism was not by saying that their traditions are man-made, though Paul makes that point repeatedly; but Paul refutes the validity of their legalism by saying that the purpose of those external laws of Moses -- the legitimate law of God on which all their man-made rules claim to be based on -- was fulfilled when Christ came. THEREFORE all the traditions of men have no legitimate justification for existence in the Christian's life, but it also necessarily means that Christians are not obligated to keep the external laws of Moses. Second, Ephesians 2 give no regard at all to any legitimacy of man-made traditions of Pharisees, and does not talk about it here. I get that the Pharisees were separatists, but this is a red herring. Paul completely ignores them here. But Paul says Jesus "brought Gentiles near through His blood," "broke down the dividing wall, abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in ordinances." Again, Jesus did not die to abolish man-made traditions, which He did not consider to be worthy even to keep before His death. Paul is also speaking in the grand scheme of things: the Gentiles' alienation from the life of Israel and from participating in the covenant blessings of Israel has long preceded any man-made traditions of the Pharisees, and was by design of God: "you were at that time separate from God, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise," verse 12. All the covenant blessings God has promised, God has promised to no other nation but Israel, hence the alienation. Also, the Mosaic laws governing holy days, dietary restrictions, marriage, clothing naturally kept Jews peculiar and unique from Gentiles; Jews could not share the same meal with Gentiles, could not do certain things on certain days, and certainly could not participate in idolatrous festivals, hence the alienation. Yes, many Gentiles had come to faith in the God of Israel in ancient times as "birds of air nested in the branches of a great tree," but it is still correct to categorize the entire Gentile world as being excluded insofar as the direct covenant blessings are given to Israel. Thus, the "laws of commandments in decrees/ordinances" that Jesus died to abolish in order to "make two into one new man," verse 15, to make both Gentiles and Jews "fellow citizens" and "fellow heirs, fellow partakers of the promise," 3:6, ARE NOT the Pharisees' man-made traditions. They are those external laws of Moses that made the Jews a distinctly Jewish people. Again, can you fully participate in the fellowship if your neighbour invites to a pork cookout, and eat whatever your host puts in front of you? You have not given me an answer yet, but this question shows you how the law of Moses itself separated the Jews from Gentiles in some way to the end that they could not share life together. Third, you are disregarding the overarching testimony of NT, that God Himself has done away with the old, external laws of Moses. To name a few passages: Mk 7: There is nothing outside the name which can defile him if it goes into him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated. Thus He declare all foods clean. Ac 10: A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat! What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." Ac 15: Some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed stood up, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the law of Moses." Peter stood up, "God who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" Ro 14: One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this -- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Spirit. 1Co 8: Food will not commend us to God. 1Co 9: Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew; to those who are under the Law, as under the law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law. To those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 1Ti 4: For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. Fourth, you yourselves do not keep the entire law of Moses. There are external laws relating to food and clothing, but there are also laws relating to the priesthood. Let me ask you this: when was the last time you made pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the three mandatory feasts? If you never have done so, why not? Also, what was the meaning of the tearing of the veil top to bottom by God Himself? This is the question to see if your unbiblical insistence for Christians to obey all of the Mosaic laws is even consistent within itself. JON: Nothing you say or do or type will change my mind. The measuring rod of truth is the law of God which is the law of Christ. Jesus kept the law perfectly and purposefully violated the traditions of the Pharisees, leaving us the perfect example. He stated whoever teaches these things will be great in the Kingdom. He said these will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away. Whatever you interpret Paul to mean that is different from Jesus is up to you. The Sabbath was, is, and will be in the future Kingdom. The temple was and will be in the future kingdom. I believe the prophecies literally. I believe the Creation week literally. This is what the Sabbath teaches us, the 6-day creation. Replacement theology, antinomianism, and dispensationalism all water-down the Scriptures and lead to allegorizing what was intended to be literal. It leads to doubting the creation week, doubting Israel's place in history and the future, and leads to places where.... You can have visions, dreams, cast out demons, and do many miracles. But what good is it in lawlessness? SKUNK: i don't know what you're on about. I do not believe in Replacement. I am not Antinomian. I am not familiar with dispensationalism. I believe in literal six-day creation week. But I am able to honestly evaluate the words of Jesus and His apostles in regard to the external laws of Moses which they do not reinforce. In fact, whenever a question arises as to whether they are still in effect in the Church, they answer in the negative. The only commandments that are reinforced and repeated are the moral laws of Moses, the 10 commandments except the Sabbath, and the greatest commandments of "love your God with all your heart," and "love your neighbour as yourself." You are making allusion to Mt 7:21-23 which is gravely concerning. I am not sure whether you mean to agree with Pharisees and Judaizers in that you must keep the law of Moses in order to be saved, or whether you mean to say that someone who does not desire to keep the external law of Moses is giving evidence that they are not really saved? Aside from the fact that you are inconsistent in your carelessly quoting passages out of context left and right in order to support your claim that we must keep the Torah -- because you don't even keep it yourself -- Matthew 7:21-23 is talking about the necessary evidence of salvation which is obedience and allegiance to the Lordship of Christ, and you have not substantiated your claim from the Bible that Christians must keep the external laws of Moses. All you have done so far is inject your speculation into what the neutral word "dogma" might mean, divorced from the context which informs what the word actually means. MIKE: The arguments you made today haven't differed from the arguments you've previously made. They're still wrong. SKUNK: Sure. 1. You say you do not make pilgrimages to Jerusalem, because there is no temple today. Why is there no temple today? 2. Can you fully participate in a neighbourhood cookout where your host serves pork? MIKE: 1. There is no temple because it was destroyed and has not yet been rebuilt 2. If by "fully participate" you mean "eat unclean things" no. If you mean fellowship, yes SKUNK: 1. Who determined that the temple be destroyed? Was it God or men? 2. What do you mean you are able to still fellowship with pork-eaters? Are you going to just sit there and watch people eat their food? MIKE: 1. God. And who determined it will be rebuilt? 2. Have you ever been to a party with only a single dish served? SKUNK: 1. So God put and end to all the temple services for now, before He rebuilds it in the Millennium. Am I hearing you right? 2. I've never been in a party where a guy really believes the activity we are all doing is sinful and still just sits with us thinking he is still fellowshipping. Are you really saying that you can watch us eat pork and still in good conscience participate in friendly conversations around the same table? 3. Any Gentile who attaches themselves to Israel to live in their land, before He participates in the Passover, had to be circumcised. Do you believe all Christians today must be circumcised? Is there truly NO ONE in this "Ask a Messianic Christian" group who claims that Torah is the law of God binding on all people at all times, who is honest and who does not shy away from being examined in the light of God's word, who will read my questions and give an answer? 1. God put an end to all the temple services in the present time when He announced His destruction and tore the veil in two from top bottom, before He rebuilds it in the Millennium. Yes or no? 2. If you are invited to a neighbourhood pork cookout, are you able to accept the invitation, and watch us pork-eaters eat our food and still in good conscience be able to participate in friendly conversations around the same table, and not try to shut down the get-together and confront us of our breaking the law of God by eating pork? 3. Any Gentile who attaches themselves to Israel to live in their land, before He participates in the Passover, had to be circumcised. As well, any male Gentile who attached himself to Abraham's house had to be circumcised, due to the sign of God's covenant. Do you believe all male Christians today must be circumcised? MIKE: I've answered all these questions and so has Jonathan and so has Ruth. Seems like you just want to stir the pot. 1. No. Temple services didn't end until the temple was destroyed 2. Yes. My conscience has been seared by the holy spirit to follow the plain reading of the Bible. As such I can watch you eat whatever you want and not feel the need to preach at you. Given your cantankerous attitude, I'd bet you'd ask me why I'm not eating pork, don't I know bacon is the most delicious thing ever. So we'd have to talk all about it. Probably solved. 3. You can't participate in the passover service at the temple, cuz there is no temple, so you're chasing after a moot point. I think you should, but you don't have to be circumcised to be saved. I think you'll eventually want to if you studying amd learning, especially without the taint of western theology. I do believe you should circumcise your sons as a matter of obedience. Did I say anything I haven't said? Or will you keep obfuscating. SKUNK: Come on now. You cannot honestly in the remotest say you made any attempt to read my questions plainly and answer them to their full stature. I asked you a question on fellowshipping with pork-eaters, and your response was to answer your own question I didn't ask. Even now, you are answering a question that is not even there, "Did the temple services end before the temple was destroyed?" which tells me that you want to hide from any real scrutiny of your position. To properly use the word you are now projecting unto me, you and Jonathan are "obfuscating," or prevaricating. But you say I am "stirring the pot." All I have done is give a plain interpretation of all the NT passages that you think support your "All Torah, for all time, for all people" position, and ask a few challenging questions. But if you are so uncomfortable with the most reasonable inquiries, and insecure about whether your position will hold up under Scriptural scrutiny, let me know, then I will stop scrutinizing your position with Scripture. 1. You have once again disregarded my actual question. Again, the question was, "Did God put an end to all temple services in the present time, after the death of Christ until the Millennium, by tearing the veil in two from top to bottom, which was fore-announced by the Lord Jesus?" 2. Just as a sidenote: there is nothing in the Bible where a Christian's conscience is characterized as being "seared by the Holy Spirit." It is considered a bad thing in Scripture, that the conscience would be seared and thus desensitized to any sinful activity. I must say that your behaviour in this pork cookout scenario is glaringly opposite of the way a regular Christian would act when he witnesses a sinful activity. For example, in the events of Pride Parade in a downtown, a regular Christian, whose conscience is captive to the word of God, as a light and witness of the gospel, would either refuse to participate in the celebration of sexual immorality, or deliberately be present to confront the idolaters of their sin and preach judgment. But as someone who believes that all Torah is binding to all people for all time, your inner conviction does not translate to any outward behaviour, either in refusing the invitation in the first place or in speaking out about how we pork-eaters are doing evil in the sight of the Lord. Instead, your response is to accept the invitation, sit pretty with the rest of us pork-eaters, watch us eat, and say zilch. Is there any other possible explanation of your behaviour, other than that -- one, you are cowardly, or two, your conviction a sham? 3. Yes, there is no temple BECAUSE God Himself destroyed it, the statement which I am still waiting for you to stop hiding from and either accept or deny in my question #1. Okay, thank you finally; you answered one of my questions. So you do believe that all Christians today should obey what Torah says to Abraham and theocratic Israel, and be circumcised. So explain to me why the apostles make such a constant emphasis to churches that they are not at all bound to keep the ceremonial and external laws of Torah -- which includes circumcision -- either for salvation or in the matters of obedience to Christ's Lordship as saved people: Ac 15: Some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed stood up, saying "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the law of Moses." The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. Peter stood up and said, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the gospel and believe. He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" 1Co 7: Was any man called when he was circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. Gal 2: But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. When certain men from James came, Cephas began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, hearing the part of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gopel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" Gal 5: It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold! I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives. circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. You were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. JON: 1. No. Paul continued to offer sacrifices in the Temple several years after the death and resurrection of Messiah, after the veil was torn. And the Prophets are replete with descriptions of Temple services in the future Kingdom of God. If the interpretation of the torn veil is that the Temple services were abolished, why are they in the future perfect Kingdom of God? Perhaps the interpretation should be that the Temple services are a picture of Messiah rather than that they should be abolished? Or perhaps the interpretation is that there is one meditator in Messiah? 2. Regarding pork, the laws of clean and unclean predate the law of Moses, as seen in the types of sacrifices presented by Abel vs. Cain, and as seen in the number of clean vs. unclean animals Noah was to take on the ark, and as seen in the animals of choices in the sacrifices presented by the Patriarchs. The laws of clean and unclean continue into the future Kingdom of God as described in Isaiah and the other Prophets. Because of this, it is clear that your interpretation of Paul is incorrect as Yeshua himself says the law cannot be abolished or pass away, and as the Prophets speak of events yet in the future. 3. Until you accept the fact that the Prophets speak of the law in the yet future Kingdom, and that several of the laws predate Moses, and that Yeshua himself said the Law could be pass away or be abolished, you will never accept any interpretation of Paul's writings except what your antinomian bias permits. How can you accept Jesus but reject what he said? Acts 15: I have already given you verses regarding circumcision existing in the Messiah's Kingdom, and that no foreigner who is uncircumcised can enter the future Temple. Yet you refuse to believe Isaiah the Prophet and continue to interpret Acts 15 according to your antinomian bias. Circumcision according to the Pharisees is not the same as circumcision in the Law of God. The Pharisees require ritual conversion and even re-circumcision (a 2nd time) before a panel of rabbis. They also require submission to the oral law which sometimes superseded the written law of God. For a clear presentation of this, refer to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tddCNY6U77Y. It is clear in the following verses that the Gentiles who come to God through faith should continue in that faith by learning how to obey God in His Law every Sabbath (Acts 15:21). 1 Corinthians 7: Circumcision is to be completed on the 8th day after birth. There is no commandment to be circumcised at any other time, even if you are a foreigner who converts. However, you must be circumcised to enter the Temple in the future Kingdom of God (Ezekiel 44:9). Paul states that keeping the commandments of God is what matters; this begins with the Ten Commandments, which includes the Sabbath. Galatians 2: Refer to all the comments above. Galatians 5: Being justified by the law is not a New Testament or Old Testament teaching. Ezekiel 18 explains the idea of repentance, and that balancing good works vs. bad works is not what God wants. Habakkuk says the just man will live by his faithfulness, and this is repeated in the New Testament. SKUNK: 1. First of all: Yes, I also believe Jesus is one and only Mediator between God and men. Yes, I also believe the ceremonial aspects of the temple and the services performed by priests as commanded by Moses were symbolic pictures of the Messiah. Yes, I also believe there will be a temple -- in the Millennium, not today -- and I believe (which you will disagree with) feasts will be REINSTITUTED and celebrated then. However, here is the obvious issue: none of these points have any relevance insofar as to supporting your claim that God did not put an end to temple services at the present time before the Millennium, or to refuting the hermeneutic of any of the passages that say God indeed did. Simply, how these points at all are definite supports of your claim seems to stem from your own Non-sequitur speculation, for which you have not shown any biblical basis. Secondly, you say Paul's continual participation in the ceremonial laws of Moses during his missionary work shows that Paul himself believed as you do, i.e. "All Torah, for all time, for all people," and that God did not put an end to temple services in the present time. Again, this is a Non-sequitur, and stems from your own speculation which you have not substantiated. Note the commentary on why Paul circumcises Timothy in Ac 16: Paul wanted this man to go with him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. Note why the Jerusalem brethren advises Paul to ostentatiously participate in the fulfilling of the Nazirite vow (which, by the way, was a voluntary act of the person, which was not required to be kept by all) by paying for four other men's Nazirite vow expenses in Ac 21: "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. Therefore do this that we tell you, and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the law. But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." Immediately, what is obvious is that the Jerusalem brethren, as per the Jerusalem Council, had no expectation from Gentile believers to keep the Jewish customs, i.e. the external laws of Moses; but they expected them to keep away from things which will offend their own sensitivities and their Jewish brothers' kosher sensitivities which Paul also affirms in Ro 14 and 1Co 8. As for Paul, he, being a Jew, is doing nothing out of the ordinary in any of his keeping the ceremonial laws of Moses; that is his heritage. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the ceremonial laws of Moses, and in the liminal period between the announcement of its destruction in Mt 24 and its destruction in A.D. 70, the temple still stood and was operational; there was no reason why Paul was unable to participate in temple services if he so desired. But what is the crux of the matter is: the reason given for circumcising Timothy was not because circumcision was a binding law of God for all Christians, but it was done "because of the Jews," i.e. for witnessing purposes, to reach out and build rapport, which was perfectly consistent with Paul's M.O. as shown in 1Co 9. Again, Paul's ostentatiously paying for the expenses of other four men in the Nazirite vow was to refute the false rumour that Paul was going around and teaching Jewish believers to forsake their Jewish heritage, i.e. forsaking the external laws of Moses, which, again, will close down opportunities for Paul to reach as many Jews as possible; the rumour was false, but he was also refusing to bind them under obligation to keep the whole law of Moses, as shown in Ro 14 among other passages. Thus, there is an obvious shift in the understanding of the Mosaic law in the Jewish Christians after the first Advent; the external laws of Moses are no longer binding laws of God for Jewish Christians living in the Church Age, but they now become a matter of personal conviction and conscience. Thirdly, you answer in the negative, and say that God has not put an end -- or a TEMPORARY STOP, to be more specific -- to temple services in the present time. By answering so, you run square into the overarching problem for yourself, of how God shows that He Himself does not see the law of Moses as you do, both in Tanakh and in the apostles' teachings. Aside from passages I already have mentioned, for none of which you have provided any refutation, explain to me this, that if the entire law of Moses -- including the temple services -- is binding at all times for all people as you say: 1. how God could send Babylonians to destroy the temple and take Israel captive to a foreign land, and at the same time expect the entire law of Moses to still be obeyed; 2. how Jesus could say to the woman at the well in Jn 4, "An hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. An hour is coming and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth," which makes allusion -- by the way as a sidenote -- to the fact that not all laws of Moses are equally valued (Ps 50:1-23, Ps 51:16,17, Am 5:21, Mt 9:13); 3. how Jesus could take away Israel's privilege of being "a kingdom of priests," i.e. being an evangelist and a channel of salvation blessing to the world, and give it to the Church in this present time, as He unequivocally makes clear to the Pharisees in Mt 21:43; 4. again, how Jesus could announce God's judgment on Israel in Mt 24:2, later fulfilled in A.D. 70, "Not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down," having no different effect than during Babylonian captivity, i.e. making some laws of Moses impossible to keep; 5. how you yourself can say in any logical sense you are unable to obey some laws of Moses for whatever reason. 2. Again, you have disregarded my actual question. Yes, Jesus Himself says in Mt 5 that He did not come to deny or contradict the testimony of Tanakh -- including the law of Moses -- but to fulfill and accomplish it as the One about whom the entire Tanakh prophesies. Yes, He affirms the inerrancy of the Scripture. Yes, He judges the false teachers who misinterpret or hide its correct meaning. Yes, the sacrificial system in the law of Moses makes allusion to earlier practices of distinguishing between what is considered a clean and unclean animal, which were as early as Ge 7:2. None of these points even substantiate your "All Torah, for all time, for all people" position, much less answer my question. There were no Sabbath days, no Passover, no feasts, no Aaronic priesthood until the law of Moses was given. I will restate my question: Is your behaviour in the scenario a sign of cowardice, or an empty profession of your "All Torah, for all time, for all people" position? But come to think, there may be a third possible explanation: Are you afraid to admit that "Yes, the law of Moses does naturally separate Jews from Gentile lifestyle," because that would allow you to understand the actual identity of "the dividing wall" in Eph 2:15 and why Pharisaic legalism is baseless in Col 2? 3. I already and repeatedly affirmed the future kingdom of Israel in the Millennium and the reinstitution of many of Mosaic laws when Christ returns. As for your criticism that I am "Antinomian," you have thus far failed to substantiate your "All Torah, for all time, for all people" claim; you would first have to prove from Scripture why I and the rest of Christians should be kosher, before you have the right to call us Antinomians. So far, you have only shown your reticence in engaging any of my inquiries head-on (i.e. "obfuscating," to quote Mike). You fail to show how these passages do not support the freedom of Christians from the external laws of Moses. There is nothing in the letter of the Jerusalem Council that requires the Gentile Christians to be circumcised, or follow the entire law of Moses. In fact, the whole Council began in the first place in order to refute the claim that they must be "circumcised and observe the law of Moses" either for salvation or for obedience (Ac 15:1,5). There is also no mention of the convoluted Pharisaic conversion ritual of second circumcision that you are speculating was the topic. The people in question were uncircumcised Gentiles who were recently converted. As a sidenote, you do not know what Torah teaches; any Gentile who attached himself to the house of Abraham had to be circumcised; all Gentile who wants to celebrate the Passover had to be circumcised. But you fail to explain how the 1Co 7 text is not telling Christians that they are not required to be circumcised. You say correctly that justification is by faith alone, apart from the works of the law. Yet, you are the same one who characterize Christians who do not subscribe to your "All Torah, for all time, for all people" position, as "Antinomians" and as the same people who cry out "Lord, Lord" in Matthew 7:21 and ultimately cast away by the Lord Jesus. This is probably the most glaring and most grievous inconsistency I've seen so far from this group, which is inevitable due to all the other baseless and anti-biblical speculations. Comments are closed.
|
CategoriesAll Discourse Doctrines Gospel Humour NT Commentaries OT Commentaries Tactical Life Date
August 2023
|