| Poster | Thread | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
The common argument in Messianic circles is against "destroying" the law and the prophets. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:18) As I understand it the word for destroy is Kataluo. The word then for fulfil is Pleroo.
Hi Robert
He did fulfil the law and the prophets. All that was spoken of Him in His first advent He fulfilled. He was Israel who did what Israel had never done. We are not talking here about the righteousness requirements of the law by its institution. Hebrews, constrasting their priesthood with His says {b} Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. [/b] (Heb 10:9 KJV) Please tell me what you think is meant by the first and the second because whatever it is we are talking about we have some kind of replacement theology here.
The word for take away is probably best captured in the English phrase done away with. The word is used here
[b]Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and [u]slew[/u] all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. [/b] (Mat 2:16 KJV)
[b] And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be [u]put to death[/u]. [/b] (Luk 23:32 KJV)
[b] Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and [u]slain[/u]: [/b] (Act 2:23 KJV)
[b] Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were [u]put to death[/u], I gave my voice against them. [/b] (Act 26:10 KJV)
There are more but this gives sufficient evidence to show how the word was used.
The reason I am drawing attention to the sacrificial system is that it was the essential function of the priesthood which in turn serviced the Sinai Covenant. The Sinai Law and the Aaronic Priesthood cannot be separated; they are inextribably linked. [b]For the priesthood being [u]changed[/u], there is made of necessity a [u]change[/u] also of the law.[/b] (Heb 7:12 KJV) 'Change' here is properly 'transfer'
[b]By faith Enoch was [u]translated[/u] that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.[/b] (Heb 11:5 KJV)
[b]And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the [u]removing[/u] of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. [/b] (Heb 12:27 KJV)
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|  2004/11/29 9:04 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
Please tell me what you think is meant by the first and the second because whatever it is we are talking about we have some kind of replacement theology here.
Hi Bro. Ron,
It goes without saying that the sacrificial system is abolished. The Temple was destroyed and so were the Sadducees. What has 'replaced' the Temple procedures for the Hasidim in my understanding is known as tzedekiah (acts or works of righteousness). This is done by a system of halakah, which is a method of making the Law relevant to today. Yet, it is well beyond all this because the main focus (in my experiance) is not the Old Covenant or the 613 Laws per se; but the Mishna and Talmud. This is like adding a layer of steel to an already concrete bunker.
God Bless,
-Robert
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2004/11/29 9:31 | Profile | rookie
Member
Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4821
Savannah TN
| | Re: | | Br. Ron wrote:
Quote:
Do I understand that your position is that the New Covenant is actually a Renewed Covenant rather than something a Brand New Covenant? Surely this would miss the strong point of Jeremiah Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. (Jer 31:31-32 ASV)
The covenant that was made with Israel in the days that they lived in Egypt is described in the book of Ezekiel chapter 20:
Ezek. 20:5 Say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day when I chose Israel and raised My hand in an oath to the descendants of the house of Jacob, and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt, I raised My hand in an oath to them, saying, I am the LORD your God. 6 On that day I raised My hand in an oath to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had searched out for them, flowing with milk and honey, the glory of all lands. 7 Then I said to them, Each of you, throw away the abominations which are before his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the LORD your God. 8 But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. 9 But I acted for My names sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt."
This is the covenant that is spoken of in Jeremiah 31.
Back to Ezekiel chapter 20:
Ezek. 20:10 Therefore I made them go out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. 11 And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments, which, if a man does, he shall live by them. 12 Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them."
Here we see that after God brought them out of Egypt, He gave the the law that Moses received on Mount Sinai.
So when Jeremiah writes of a new covenant, he is refering as Rabbi Eukel taught a renewing of the oath that God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Listen to this Scripture that supports this idea.
Jer. 16:14 Therefore behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that it shall no more be said, The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, 15 but, The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands where He had driven them. For I will bring them back into their land which I gave to their fathers.
Do you see what Scripture teaches? Not only does the Scripture in Jeremiah 31 pretain to the times of the church of Acts, but also to the time of God bringing back His people from Babylon during the times of Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah.
In Christ
Jeff
_________________
Jeff Marshalek
|
| | 2004/11/29 12:09 | Profile | rookie
Member
Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4821
Savannah TN
| | Re: Jewish Roots: Rich, Redemptive, Not Replaced & RUACH HaKODESH | | Rabbi Eukel wrote:
Quote:
We sense The Presence of GOD, RUACH HaKODESH, and we want to celebrate in the midst of His Saturating Presence. We want for ourselves, our family and our grandchildren to expereince in all the vibrancy our ancient traditions teach us, that revival fire that renews, restores, and reverberates deeply through our spirit as we connect again to ADONAI through His Only and Uniquely begotten Son, YESHUA The Messiah.
Can you teach about the RUACH HaKODESH in the ancients?
In Christ
Jeff
_________________
Jeff Marshalek
|
| | 2004/11/29 12:16 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
The Temple was destroyed and so were the Sadducees. What has 'replaced' the Temple procedures for the Hasidim in my understanding is known as tzedekiah (acts or works of righteousness).
This is pretty much what Paul roundly condemned [b]For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.[/b] (Rom 10:3-4 KJV)
I might argue a case with the Hasidim that there is no warrant for this alteration of Covenant Law. In fact I might argue the same case with the Messianic Jew. Law cannot be altered in this manner. In the Sinai Covenant the law and the Aaronic priesthood were an integrated whole. We cannot disconnect part of this and then add our own substitute. Is it only the sacrificial system which is abolished or is it the Sinai Covenant?
Do you agree that it is the Sinai Covenant that was in mind as the contrast when Jeremiah said that the New Covenant was not like the Old Covenant?
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/11/29 13:19 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
Do you agree that it is the Sinai Covenant that was in mind as the contrast when Jeremiah said that the New Covenant was not like the Old Covenant?
It has always been my understanding that we were dealing with the Old and New covenant. I am still thinking through the issues that Bro. Jeff brought up. However, a word of caution here. I believe these things are long settled and are not up for grabs. To me its settled in stone.
God Bless,
-Robert
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2004/11/29 13:42 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
To me its settled in stone.
Hi Robert
Even things written in stone can be changed. ;-)
[b]A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and [u]I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh[/u], and I will give you a heart of flesh. [/b] (Eze 36:26 ASV)
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say these things are long settled and not up for grabs.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/11/29 13:48 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
This is the covenant that is spoken of in Jeremiah 31.
There are two covenants referenced in Jeremiah 31:31[b]Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to [u]the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt[/u]; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: [/b] (Jer 31:31-33 ASV)
This passage declares the fact of the Sinai Covenant in which God became as a husband to them. This terminology is used in the beautiful passage of Ezekiel 16:9 [b]Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord Jehovah, and thou becamest mine. [/b] (Eze 16:8 ASV) This 'thou becamest mine' is a clear reference to the initial gathering at Sinai when God says [b]Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, [u]then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples[/u]: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. [/b](Exo 19:5-6 ASV)
But this passage also speaks of a New Covenant which would be [b] [u]not[/u] according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt[/b]. In other words NOT like the Sinai Covenant. This states quite plainly that not only is the New Covenant NOT a 'refreshed version' of the Sinai Covenant, it is not going to be according to that Covenant. It was not going to be that kind of covenant at all.
Marking the clear distinction between the Covenants God says [b]But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days..[/b] That but again makes the contrast all the more plain. The whole point of this passage is to show that the New Covenant is [u]distinct from[/u] and [u]subsequent to[/u] the Sinai Covenant. This is why the earlier is called Old and the later New. In fact the writer to the Hebrews says that it was this declaration of Gods future intention that actually made the Sinai Covenant old. [b] 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. [/b] (Heb 8:13 KJV) This uses the perfect tense of the verb to make old. It became old from the moment God began to speak about the new. It is very plain that we are not talking about refreshed covenants but redundant ones.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/11/29 14:12 | Profile | rookie
Member
Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4821
Savannah TN
| | Re: | | Br. Ron wrote:
Quote:
This passage declares the fact of the Sinai Covenant in which God became as a husband to them. This terminology is used in the beautiful passage of Ezekiel 16:9 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord Jehovah, and thou becamest mine. (Eze 16:8 ASV) This 'thou becamest mine' is a clear reference to the initial gathering at Sinai when God says Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exo 19:5-6 ASV)
Ezekiel 16 and 20 are the same. Look again to Ezekiel 20.
When does Scripture say God made the covenant with Israel?
6 On that day I raised My hand in an oath to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had searched out for them, flowing with milk and honey, the glory of all lands. 7 Then I said to them, Each of you, throw away the abominations which are before his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the LORD your God. 8 But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. 9 But I acted for My names sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt."
The Law was given after they, the people Israel had disobeyed His voice. How often do we disobey His voice?
Believe the Scriptures and not the traditions of men.
In Christ
Jeff
_________________
Jeff Marshalek
|
| | 2004/11/29 14:22 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say these things are long settled and not up for grabs.
Hi Bro. Ron,
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Hebrews 7;11, 12)
We know that the Old Covenant at Sinai Could not bring man to salvation. If righteousness could have came by the Law verily it would have.
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
To me it is quite clear that the New Covenant does what the Old could not. In short it is the Spirit Filled life; where we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. To me this is the aspect of Christianity that many are missing. They are not living the New Covenant life. They have a version of the Law or something that they are trying to conform to, but its not genuine Christianity. Nothing short of all that entails walking in the Spirit can be considered the fruit of the true Gospel.
God Bless,
-Robert
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2004/11/29 14:24 | Profile |
|
