951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


The Kingdom and Your Response

  

Before the Kingdom comes, a terrible time of darkness, violence, and tribulation will come. Just when it seems that all hope is lost, Jesus will come in the clouds, resurrect his followers, and establish his reign on the earth. For the first thousand years, Jesus will rule the earth from Jerusalem. During this time, many regular people will also be living. Thus, it will be the responsibility of the followers of Christ to function as priests to these people and administer the government. While this new theocracy is proceeding, the earth itself will be restored, like an antique car, to its former state of perfection (the Garden of Eden). After the thousand years, everyone who was not part of the first resurrection will be judged, Satan will be destroyed, and then God Himself will come perpetually to dwell on the earth with His children.

In order to give you an understanding of the Kingdom, we have selected ten attributes to explain:

  1. The faithful of all ages will inherit the land that was originally promised to Abraham. Planet Earth will be totally restored to Paradise. There will be no famine, no pollution, no harsh weather, no natural disasters, and no deserts. The entire creation will be changed to facilitate the worship of God. In fact, a jewel filled, custom designed city made by God Himself, New Jerusalem, will come down out of heaven and be established over the Old Jerusalem. This new city will be made of all sorts of precious stones and gold. You may have heard of the “pearly gates;” they are a feature of this massive and beautiful New Jerusalem.
  2. The saints will enjoy resurrected bodies for eternity. This means they will never again be afflicted with broken bones, deterioration, bad eyesight, bruises, scrapes, disabilities, etc. Those who are lame today will in that day leap like deer, and those who are blind today will see with perfect clarity in the Kingdom. The bodies will be immortal; so, no matter what happens, death is not a concern.
  3. Rewards will be given to the saints for the deeds they have done in this life. Those who endured persecution or were martyred will be given rewards for their faithful service to the Ruler of heaven and earth.
  4. There will be peace—no more war, violence, anger, bullying, or anxiety. In fact, even the animals will be at peace with each other and mankind. That means that you would be able to have a lion as a pet. The carnivorous animals will be changed to herbivores and will no longer be afraid of humans.
  5. Justice will be pervasive in the Kingdom. The poor, orphans, downtrodden, and less fortunate will get their just due. The arrogant, wicked, and rebellious will be destroyed so that there will never again be someone to take advantage or harm the people of God.
  6. All the people in the final Kingdom of God will be holy. They will no longer be tempted to sin. The struggle will have been won, and they will be empowered to live righteously every moment of every day forever. Never again will the saints need to repent, feel guilt, or experience shame towards God because of sins committed.
  7. The citizens of the Paradise of God will be filled with unimaginable joy. Singing, dancing, and celebration will abound. Furthermore, nothing will be in existence to take away joy—no more pain, suffering, or weeping. The only tears that will be shed will be because of happiness.
  8. You will be able to have fellowship with the saints. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Peter, Paul, and John will make up your dinner party along with anyone else who has entered the Kingdom. Loved ones will be reunited and spend as much quality time as they desire. What’s more, Jesus himself will be present and available for conversation and companionship. Since you will have infinite time, you can spend however much time you like with each person who is living in the Kingdom of God.
  9. We will get our knowledge of God directly from the Source. No longer will there be misconceptions about His nature, plan, and intentions. God Himself, Yahweh, the Father of all, will teach us everything we need to know. We will know Him as well as He knows us today.
  10. The Father will be dwelling on the earth; we will be living with Him forever. The Bible teaches that He will light up New Jerusalem so that even the sun will dim in comparison to His glory. We will be able to speak to Him face to face and enjoy His love directly. We will see the Holy One and experience Him firsthand.

This Kingdom, this Paradise, this Utopia, is on its way. Its arrival is imminent. God Himself has promised it and will accomplish it in His time. Why hasn’t Jesus come back yet? What is taking so long? The Bible teaches that God is very patient because He wants everyone (including you) to have a chance to accept the message before it is too late.

Are you ready? If not, there are certain required actions that you must take. Just as when you are going on a long trip, there are preparations to be made. According to Jesus, you must hear, understand, accept, and hold fast to the gospel of the Kingdom, and then you must bear fruit—live the way that he has commanded.

Hear: Everything starts with this. If you do not hear the message of salvation, then you are dead in the water. But hearing is not enough…

Understand: There is no magical formula in Christianity. Just saying the words of the sinners’ prayer is not enough. You must truly understand that the Kingdom is coming and that Jesus died for your sins so that you could enter it. Furthermore, you should understand two key words: (1) Christ and (2) Lord. The term “Christ” means “anointed.” But anointed for what purpose? Jesus is the Christ anointed to be the King of the Kingdom. Therefore, every time you read Christ, you may substitute mentally: the King of the Kingdom. Secondly, “Lord” means boss or master. If Jesus is your Lord, then you will do what he says. Even so, having this understanding is not enough…

Accept: You have to accept the gospel as truth. Faith is the basis of everything. Additionally, there needs to be repentance—true heartfelt sorrow and a desire to change anything and everything for the one who died for your sins. Confess that Jesus is your Lord and be baptized in his name. Commit to following his words for the rest of your life. Yet, even acceptance and belief are not enough…

Hold it Fast: God honors your right to choose. If you change your mind and decide that you do not want to be in the Kingdom, He will not force you to be there. If you truly desire to be with Him forever in Paradise, then there is nothing that He will not do to help you get there. As with marathon racers, the beginning of our faith is not as important as the end. You must hold fast to your faith until the end. God does not want part of you, He wants your whole life. Still, holding your faith fast until the end is not enough…

Bear Fruit: Your life as a Christian is like a fruit tree. If you have received the seed of the gospel and it has taken root in faith, then you will have corresponding fruit—actions. Rather than living the old way according to your own desires, you need to live according to what God desires for you. Those who demonstrate the fruit of immorality, impurity, sex outside of marriage, jealousy, outbursts of anger, and drunkenness will not inherit the Kingdom of God. However, the fruit of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

All of these elements are essential. You must hear the message of salvation (the Kingdom and the Cross). You must accept it (believe it, repent, confess, and be baptized). You must hold it fast a lifetime. You must bear fruit—behave the way God wants. Christianity is no cakewalk but the glorious future Kingdom, and fellowship with God today, make it all worthwhile.

108 Responses to “The Kingdom and Your Response”

  1. on 14 Jul 2011 at 12:06 pmGeorge

    Thank you,God Bless you,
    God Bless YOU,
    He Loves you,
    You are Gods Best

  2. on 14 Jul 2011 at 12:32 pmFrank D

    Oh, what a day!

    Sean, Is it available to circulate this? How about adding bible verses as references in 1-10? (I can add but seeking permission to edit….)

  3. on 14 Jul 2011 at 1:17 pmSean

    Frank…it’s all yours…edit away

    the Hear, Understand, Accept, etc….comes from combining the good soil from Jesus’ parable of the sower in Mat, Mark, and Luke.

  4. on 14 Jul 2011 at 1:58 pmFiona

    Thank you Sean, you have written down my very favorite dream, and I long for the return of Jesus, our Lord. I find that the more often you read of his coming, the more real it becomes. Very soon it won’t be a dream, but a glorious reality!

  5. on 14 Jul 2011 at 2:17 pmXavier

    Sean

    By the sounds of it the Kingdom will be a hierarchical one?

  6. on 14 Jul 2011 at 5:51 pmAngela

    Excellent article! LOVED it.

  7. on 14 Jul 2011 at 11:32 pmBrian

    Sean,

    You state that God “will be dwelling on the earth”. Could you “flesh” that out a little bit.

  8. on 19 Jul 2011 at 3:44 amJoseph

    Bear Fruit: Your life as a Christian is like a fruit tree. If you have received the seed of the gospel and it has taken root in faith, then you will have corresponding fruit—actions. Rather than living the old way according to your own desires, you need to live according to what God desires for you. Those who demonstrate the fruit of immorality, impurity, sex outside of marriage, jealousy, outbursts of anger, and drunkenness will not inherit the Kingdom of God. However, the fruit of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

    What about commandments to celebrate the passover seder (Matthew 26:29), or feast of tabernacles (Zech 14:16-19)?

    Matthew 26:29 “I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

    Zech 14:16-19 16 “Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 17 If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, they will have no rain. 18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The LORD[b] will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 19 This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.”

    Jesus said that he would be celebrating passover once again in the Kingdom. How many Christians know how to perform a seder, or know what feast of tabernacles (sukkot) is even about?

    What about the other commandments from God? Jesus taught, and said to teach and obey all of God’s commandments. This includes the Torah, the same commandments that he and his Apostles lived by.

    I know that basically everyone from this blog have the view that the Torah law is not applicable to them, but I challenge everyone to see how Jesus lived his life and whether you want to be sitting with him during the Passover and Sukkot, or what will you be doing while this is going on?

  9. on 19 Jul 2011 at 10:49 amSean

    Brian,

    I understand Rev. 20, the millennium, to be a time of transition during which the resurrected will reign on earth. At the end of this time there is a final judgment and then New Jerusalem comes down from heaven from God.

    Rev 21:2-4 NASB
    2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.
    3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them,
    4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

    glory!

  10. on 19 Jul 2011 at 11:38 amXavier

    Sean

    By the sounds of it the Kingdom will be a hierarchical one?

  11. on 19 Jul 2011 at 1:54 pmSean

    Carlos,

    I’m not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by hierarchical? Christ will be the king (messiah) and his people will be in charge…is that what you are asking?

  12. on 19 Jul 2011 at 2:46 pmXavier

    Sean

    When it comes to rewards, it sounds like some of us [Christians] will be “higher up” than others?

  13. on 19 Jul 2011 at 4:53 pmDoubting Thomas

    Joseph,
    You asked, “How many Christians know how to perform a seder, or know what feast of tabernacles (sukkot) is even about?”

    I have never even heard of a seder. I’ve heard of the feast of tabernacles, but I don’t know exactly what it is or why the Jews celebrate it. The only Jewish holiday that I know the about is Hanukkah, and that’s only because I watched a show about it once. I guess I’m your typical Christian in that I’m completely ignorant of the Jewish festivals and holidays.

    BTW – What is a seder??? And, what is the feast of tabernacles about???

  14. on 20 Jul 2011 at 3:17 amJoseph

    DT,

    ‘Seder’ is the Hebrew word for ‘order, arrange.’ It’s a common word used in everyday Hebrew. “ani rotse l’seder et hadvarim sheli” or “I want to arrange my things.” The word is also used of the process that one does during the Passover meal. Jesus was following a customary Jewish seder he performed every year during his life when he was eating and drinking with his Apostles during the Passover (last meal). It wasn’t a one time event. Jesus then tells them as they are passing around the cup of wine during the seder that he would not drink again from the vine until the time of the Kingdom, when he will once again be celebrating Passover.

    What surprises me is how Christians can alienate themselves from what Jesus did and taught and think that these customs somehow don’t apply to them. To me, that’s following another religion. So I ask the question to all Christians, what will you be doing when Christ is participating in the seder in the coming Kingdom? Having a Easter egg hunt? Joking aside, I think this is a serious issue.

    The same thing applies to Feast of Tabernacles. A wonderful event to take part in. It’s like family/friends night for the entire week as you dwell in your sukah (tabernacle) in fellowship, prayer, remembrance to the Israelites that were in the desert for 40 years, and much more. Just the process of getting ready in building the sukkot with family and children is a great experience.

    Passover and Sukkot are just a couple mentioned of the Kingdom. But I believe that all traditions from God will be celebrated in remembrance of how God’s people and plan led us to salvation through Messiah. I understand that there are many levels of learning and many that are new to the faith. Being a Christian is more than just Love your neighbor, Kingdom message, and believe in God and Messiah. It’s obeying God’s commandments and following in the footsteps of Yeshua. As we become grafted into the tree of Israel we take upon us to grow in what it means to partake as part of Israel.

    Of course you know of Wiki. Here are a couple links that go into more detail…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_Seder
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukkot

  15. on 20 Jul 2011 at 11:08 amAntioch

    Joseph,

    I am considering your argument. You may have answered this already, but what do you make of Acts 15 – the seeming release of all the requirements of the law for the gentiles?

  16. on 21 Jul 2011 at 12:31 amJoseph

    Antioch,

    Yes, I have already touched on Acts 15 in another thread in which I apologize as I don’t have the link off hand. For the sake of not taking this thread to far off of the Kingdom topic, here is a article written by Ron Ammundsen that goes chapter by chapter of the entire book of Acts, as well as touches on chapter 15 and the context of the Law debate… http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/evidence.html

    I’d be delighted to hear your point of view, objections, or any question you may have on the article. I also found a Law thread on the KR blog that we could start a new discussion… http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/07/11/is-the-mosaic-law-relevant-to-any-christians/

    As you see, I interpret Paul letter’s in light of the Tanach and his own actions. With the way Christianity has segregated overtime from it’s roots makes me think of a Kingdom that has classes of people that follow two separate belief systems. Hardly a unified Kingdom that I had in mind under a King Messiah.

  17. on 21 Jul 2011 at 11:43 amAntioch

    Thanks – I will review those and get back to you. As I’ve only been a Christian for 18 months, I have found thus far that the more I am able to ‘get inside the head’ of a first century Jew, the more meaning I derive from my Bible study.

    For example, my wife and I went to a ‘Christian seder’ this past year and it blew my mind all of the traditions of that meal that pointed to Jesus. It also shed some new light on the last supper story.

  18. on 21 Jul 2011 at 1:47 pmSean

    Antioch,

    May I recommend that you also read Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews which clearly make the case that the people of God are no longer under the Law since the new covenant has come. Furthermore even today, Orthodox Jews teach that Gentiles don’t need to keep the Law in order to be saved. To put Gentiles under the yoke of the Law is to “judaize” and the apostle Paul was persecuted by such people throughout his missionary efforts. Whether or not we celebrate the feast of booths in the kingdom is a separate issue, what’s clear for us today is that no one is to be our judge on such matters:

    (Col 2:16-17 NAU) 16 ¶ Therefore no one is to act as your judge 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 mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

    It is really remarkable that this topic is so persistent among those who accept the writings of the Apostle Paul.

  19. on 21 Jul 2011 at 2:48 pmXavier

    Sean

    …Orthodox Jews teach that Gentiles don’t need to keep the Law in order to be saved.

    How’d you figure?

  20. on 21 Jul 2011 at 5:36 pmDoubting Thomas

    Joseph,
    Thanks for the links. It was very interesting and informative.

    You said, “What surprises me is how Christians can alienate themselves from what Jesus did and taught and think that these customs somehow don’t apply to them.”

    Most Christians interpret Paul’s writings to mean that under the new Covenant these traditions no longer apply. I do agree that there is a “new Covenant”. Y’shua said in Luke 22:20;

    “… This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (ESV).

    I’m just not entirely sure what Y’shua meant by a “new covenant”. From what I have seen different Christians seem to have different ideas about what this “new covenant” actually is…

  21. on 22 Jul 2011 at 10:28 amSean

    Xavier,

    I don’t have to figure, I asked an orthodox Jew directly whether or not I, as a Gentile, needed to keep Torah. She said no. It was not even a question in her mind. The mosaic covenant was made with Israel as an ethnic group. It is not for Gentiles and never has been. Gentiles, she said, are saved by keeping the Noahide laws (basic morality) not by becoming Jews. The first generation of Christians clearly backed this up when they decided Gentiles did not need to become Jews in order to join the Jesus movement in Acts 15. My point is simply this. Even if Jesus never came, we still wouldn’t need to keep Torah b/c we are not biological descendants of Israel!

    DT,

    For understanding what the new covenant is you must turn to the Letter to the Hebrews since that is the burden of that theological treatise. The background to Hebrews is that some Jews in Rome had been converted to Christianity but they were being tempted to go back into Judaism which was much more recognized and dignified in Rome. The writer makes the point probably a dozen times that what came with Christ is superior to what came with Moses because Jesus is superior to the angels, Jesus is superior to Moses, the New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant, the New Covenant has a superior sacrifice to the Old Covenant, the New Covenant is founded on better promises than the Old Covenant, and the priesthood of the New Covenant (after Melch.) is superior to the priesthood of the Old Covenant (after Aaron). The letter explicitly says that the Old Covenant is obsolete b/c the new has come. Remember that at 80 years old Moses started keeping sabbath and kosher. When God changed the way he related to his people, Moses had to get on board. With Christ the next stage of God’s relation to his people began and to go back to the old would, in some way, deny what Christ has accomplished.

  22. on 22 Jul 2011 at 12:00 pmXavier

    Sean

    Gentiles, she said, are saved by keeping the Noahide laws (basic morality) not by becoming Jews.

    So this is one Jew’s opinion but what is the “standard practice”, if there is such a thing. As far as I know you had to convert to Judaism to be considered God’s people. i.e. the saved.

  23. on 22 Jul 2011 at 2:54 pmSean

    Xavier,

    She was an Orthodox Jew (i.e. a Jew of standard practice) who was from Israel. I’m not sure how you would confirm this belief or not. Surely there must be some website or book that gives Orthodox Jewish doctrine on the Gentiles.

  24. on 22 Jul 2011 at 3:41 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier,
    From what I understand the Jews have always accepted righteous Gentiles as long as they followed the Mosaic law and the Ten Commandments. They were actually allowed into the outer part of the temple to hear the word of God being taught, but not into the 2 inner parts of the temple. Of course some of them converted to Judaism and were circumcised and were then bound by the entire law of Moses. But, from what I understand no-one forced them to convert to Judaism. It has always been a freewill choice for righteous Gentiles whether they wanted to convert or not.

    From what I understand this standard practice has not changed even to this day…

  25. on 22 Jul 2011 at 6:10 pmXavier

    DT

    I concur.

  26. on 23 Jul 2011 at 8:23 amBrian

    Sean,

    In reference to Orthodox Jew speaking of Gentiles being “saved” — I didn’t think that that was a term that would normally be used. Do you think the term “saved” meant the same thing to her as it would to us?

  27. on 25 Jul 2011 at 4:04 amJoseph

    Sean,

    Antioch,

    May I recommend that you also read Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews which clearly make the case that the people of God are no longer under the Law since the new covenant has come.

    Which are all letters written by Paul which need to be taken into context in light of the Tanach and Paul’s background, not in light of the pagan culture. The new covenant has nothing to do with not being under the Law, which is why Jeremiah 31 says that the law will be written in the hearts of believers. This of course has nothing to do with omitting any of the Law, which is why Jesus himself said that he does not come to change one thing about the Law, but rather to fulfill (lit. fill full). Nothing to do with abolishing God’s Torah.

    Furthermore even today, Orthodox Jews teach that Gentiles don’t need to keep the Law in order to be saved.

    While I agree with this, it has no bearing on the subject here being that modern day Judaism does not accept Jesus as their Messiah, so they don’t see a grafting in of the Gentiles into a New Covenant with Israel. All my family living in Israel (my wife’s side) are Orthodox Jews in which none of them believe that Yeshua is Messiah. They do believe that Gentiles only need to uphold the Noahide laws, but they do believe that if one converts to Judaism and takes on God’s covenant as part of the chosen, they will obtain a higher position in the afterlife. So gentiles will not hold the same glory as Jews in the Kingdom according to Orthodox Judaism.

    To put Gentiles under the yoke of the Law is to “judaize” and the apostle Paul was persecuted by such people throughout his missionary efforts.

    Only if it’s for the wrong reasons. Paul was against believers getting circumcised to make themselves think they are holier or saved. How do we know this? Because Paul circumcised Timothy who was well along in the ways of God. If I were to take your position I would have to believe that Paul is a hypocrite and condemned Timothy to death under the Law.

    Continued…

  28. on 25 Jul 2011 at 4:05 amAdoniqam

    Teaching Torah is not Judaizing by any degree. While Orthodox Jews will argue otherwise, Yeshua made it very clear that the degree of Torah that one adheres to, will dictate their status in the kingdom:

    (KJV) Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so , he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    There is no separation between the keeping of Torah here and now and keeping it in the world to come, as Yeshua just plainly stated.
    Further, he then goes on to explain how to properly keep the written law of Torah to his disciples (including proper behavior when offering at the temple — ibid. et seq.). All of this then culminates at the end of the book of Matthew where Yeshua tells his disciples to go and teach all things that he taught them to all nations. Yeshua taught Torah and therefore it must be taught to all nations.

    If we are to worry about the kingdom and what kingdom life will be like, then we need to be learn and practice the Torah. Scripture says that it will go out from Zion and all nations will flow to God’s mountain to learn from it (Is. 2:1-5). Torah is a shadow the comings things (Col. 2:17), which proves that until those things come, we should rehearse them here and now because the antitype has not yet superceded them let alone supplant them. “What will kingdom life be like?” one may ask. Read these scriptures to find out: Is 2:1-5, 56:6-7, 66:22-24; Ez 45:21-25, 47:12-14 & 20-23; Zec 8:23, 14:15-21; Mic 4:1-2; Mt 5:17-19; Lk 22:15-16; Col 2:17.

    The Kingdom starts with your actions (Lk 17:20-21)

  29. on 25 Jul 2011 at 4:05 amJoseph

    Whether or not we celebrate the feast of booths in the kingdom is a separate issue, what’s clear for us today is that no one is to be our judge on such matters:

    (Col 2:16-17 NAU) 16 ¶ Therefore no one is to act as your judge 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 mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

    Actually it’s not a separate issue. Those traditions are Laws as commanded by God. So whether you like it or not, Gentiles will be partaking in God’s Torah in the Kingdom, even to the point where it says that anyone who does not participate will be punished as said in Zech 14.

    Now let’s take a look at the passage from Col 2 you defend your position with…

    Starting off, the ordinances that are being talked about (v14) are from the Greek word δογμα dogma, which is man made traditions, opinions, but never for Torah. Here’s a list of every place that the word δογμα dogma and anything related thereto occurs within the LXX and NT: 1 Esd 6:33; Esth 3:9; 2 Macc 10:8; 15:36; 3 Macc 1:3; 4:11; 5:40; 4 Macc 4:23f, 26; 10:2; Dn 2:13, 15; 6:13; Dn (Theodotian). 2:13; 3:10, 12, 96; 4:6; 6:9ff, 13f, 16, 27; Lk 2:1; Acts 16:4; 17:7; Eph 2:15; Col 2:14, 20. The occurrence in Eph 2:15 is an allusion to the Herodian Temple partition erected by innovation to restrict gentile access – see Ant 15:417; Acts 21:28-29; Rev. 11:2.

    16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:
    17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Messiah

    Notice that these things ARE a shadow of things to come. Not WERE a shadow, but ARE a shadow. We will be keeping these things in God’s Kingdom. (Zech. 14, Isa 66) In this scripture, the words in parentheses are added by the translator. This is because the translator did not understand or had a biased opinion about what the Greek text meant. Here is how this should read:

    16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath
    17 which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Messiah

    Of all the modern translations, only a few such as the King James Version translate the word “Body” in verse 17 correctly. The NIV totally butchers this verse.

    The word “body” in verse 17 does mean “body”. It is Strong’s #4983.

    In the KJV, this Greek word is translated:

    “body” 144 times
    “bodily” 1 time in 2cor. 10:10
    “slave” one time in Rev. 18:3.

    In fact, this same Greek word is translated “body” only two verses later! Now, keeping that in mind this verse should read:

    Let no man therefore judge you in meat, drink, etc (which are a shadow of things to come) BUT THE BODY OF MESSIAH!

    In other words, we should let only the body of the Messiah judge us! Can we as brethren in Messiah judge each other? Yes we can.

    It is really remarkable that this topic is so persistent among those who accept the writings of the Apostle Paul.

    Why? Paul affirmed his dedication to God’s Torah. I see Paul’s teachings to the Gentiles in light of his passion for proselytizing and getting the Kingdom message unto the World. Acts 15 shows us this, in that the agreement was to plant seeds within the Gentile populace knowing that Moses would be preached on the Sabbath in the synagogues where all of God’s believers would grow in their faith and God’s ways. As also shown in various places in the NT where Gentiles are with the Jews in the synagogues on the Sabbath.

  30. on 14 Aug 2011 at 9:13 pmAntioch

    Joseph,

    I have read through some of the material you linked. I don’t find this question to be a slam dunk either way, but continue to pray about it. I will say that the idea of keeping a sabbath, as a separate point, has been convicting me of late. But a sabbath in the spirit of Isaiah 58, which hit me this week.

    I’d like to get your opinion on John 8:1-11 (neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more). Isn’t Jesus breaking from the Law on this?

  31. on 14 Aug 2011 at 11:35 pmRay

    Jesus, being the one among them who was without sin, taking upon himself the sins of the one caught in adultry, became the sacrifice, the Lamb, thus establishing the law.

    The shadow of death was hanging over her, reminding me of the first Passover.

  32. on 18 Aug 2011 at 11:14 pmAdoniqam

    Antioch, Yeshua isn’t breaking the Torah here because (a) they needed to be before the Sanhedrin (which Yeshua confirms Mt 5:22;23:1-3), (b) the man who she was allegedly caught with wasn’t there, (c) nor were the witnesses (or at least the text doesn’t say they were). Lastly, that pericope is considered a late invention/addition to the text.

    Hope this helps

  33. on 19 Aug 2011 at 8:12 amXavier

    Adoniqam

    Is Jesus ever said to have broken Torah?

  34. on 19 Aug 2011 at 10:00 pmDoubting Thomas

    Adoniqam,
    Welcome to K.R.!!! I don’t remember seeing you post here before. There are a lot of great articles on this site. I hope you enjoy your visit.

    Shabbat Shalom (I hope I’m spelling that right)… 🙂

  35. on 22 Aug 2011 at 1:18 amAdoniqam

    Thanks Doubting Thomas, I’ve been here before awhile back. I’m friends with Joseph.

    @Xavier, Yeshua no where in the scriptures broke the Torah. He couldn’t have, because if he did it would have disqualified him as the Messiah of Israel. More specifically, he would be considered with sin and thus wouldn’t be any better off than any of the rest of us. Isaiah 53 calls him an אשם ‘asham or “guilt offering” (Is 53:10). As we all know, sacrifice was based upon the notion of the “innocent for the guilty” thus no animals were to have blemishes lest they be considered unfit for the vicarious atonement. So Yeshua had to have lived by the Torah perfectly or he wouldn’t have been fit to take it’s curses upon himself in place of those to whom the curse had been poured out (cf Dn 9:11 with Gal 3:13). The curse was from the Torah, therefore he had to live in perfect harmony with the conditions of the Torah to his death in order for him to take the curses of others’ shortcomings upon himself.

    I hope this helps.

  36. on 25 Aug 2011 at 6:17 pmJoseph

    To add to this, Yeshua never broke the Torah, there were disputes as to whether he did from varying views of his day, but he never did break the Torah. As Erik pointed out, he couldn’t have and still be our Messiah.

  37. on 25 Aug 2011 at 8:56 pmXavier

    Adoniqam

    Yeshua no where in the scriptures broke the Torah.

    I am sure you have seen these but what about Luke 6.1-5; John 5.1-17?

    Would you agree with the following commentary on Heb 7.12 from the ESV Study Bible:

    The establishment of a better priesthood (Christ’s) shows Christians that there also has been a change from the Mosaic law, since that law required a succession of priests, all descended from Levi (Heb. 7:18–19).

    Thus, Jesus’ role as a non-Levitical high priest is strong evidence that the Mosaic covenant (the “old covenant”) is no longer in effect.

  38. on 25 Aug 2011 at 11:47 pmAdoniqam

    Yeah, I’ve seen those. The first one involves Yeshua’s disciples threshing in their hands the wheat they plucked. This of course was not breaking the written Torah, but was breaking what that group of Pharisees deemed as Oral Torah. The thing is, some commandments take precedence over others. Yeshua proved this by his reasoning and example of David bringing people into the temple to eat shew bread even though it was for the priests. They were not condemned for it. The basic needs of man to exist take presence over the Sabbath which is why it is okay to save a man from death on Shabbat even if it requires work. Yeshua makes this clear when he states in Mark that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around. The same reasoning is applied to the John account. Further, according to Oral Torah one may carry a load within his house. If the man in John lived upon his bed as a house, then a case could be made that he was able to carry his bed after he was healed. Animals could be pulled from pits, but humans can’t eat grain in fields (which is an express command in Deuteronomy btw)? Yeshua, just as in Matt 5 and 15 was showing the Pharisees who swallow a camel while straining a gnat, to not neglect the more important matters of the Torah.

    As for Hebrews 7, I agree that there was a change in the priesthood. As of today there isn’t one. Further, the term there used for “change” simply means to transfer from one place to another — not to annul however. It’s the same word used in Hebrews 11:5 to describe how Enoch was “translated” from one place to another (μετατίθημι).

    With this said, I wouldn’t find grounds to conclude that the Mosaic law is no longer in effect. It is said to be “ready to vanish” but having already vanished. The writer of Hebrews is speaking of it’s being superseded by the new covenant, which of course is not in full effect either. It will be when the kingdom of God arrives here though. The tribes haven’t been gathered, not everyone knows God yet, etc — these are all stipulations of the new covenant. The Levitical priesthood is the earthly while the Melchizedekian is the heavenly. We are still earthly my brother. And even when the heavenly kingdom does come in, we will still have another temple with the Levitical priesthood functioning (Ez 40-48).

  39. on 26 Aug 2011 at 12:45 amMark C.

    As for Hebrews 7, I agree that there was a change in the priesthood. As of today there isn’t one. Further, the term there used for “change” simply means to transfer from one place to another — not to annul however. It’s the same word used in Hebrews 11:5 to describe how Enoch was “translated” from one place to another (μετατίθημι).

    That’s correct. Paul wrote that the Mosaic Law is not done away with, but “fulfilled.” He goes on to describe how walking by the spirit in love fulfills the Law, which follows what Jesus taught about the heart being more important than the outward actions. It is the spirit of the Law and not the letter of it that we are to adhere to. Exactly how this works and what it looks like, Paul describes throughout his epistles.

  40. on 26 Aug 2011 at 1:12 amAdoniqam

    @Mark

    I’ll agree. Perfecting the inward action is the first step to perfecting the whole which includes the outer actions as well. It’s absurd to think that the Torah commands are some how annulled, as this goes completely contrary to the Tanach. However, Yeshua did very clearly teach how to understand the Love aspect of the Torah — making it’s application more righteous thereby (Is 42:21; Mt 5:17 et seq)

  41. on 26 Aug 2011 at 7:44 amXavier

    Adoniqam

    This of course was not breaking the written Torah, but was breaking what that group of Pharisees deemed as Oral Torah.

    Plucking grain on the Sabbath and eating it breaks the Law though. Just like David did something not lawful (cf. Lev. 24:5–9) by eating the bread of the Presence (i.e., the consecrated sanctuary bread). There is no analogy with “Oral Torah” here but of Torah itself. This is made clear in the parallel account of Mat 12:

    …haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?

    This is in line with Jesus’ teaching that the law was intended to serve God’s people, rather than God’s people being intended to serve the law (cf. Mark 2:27).

    Furthermore, David and his followers did this ‘unlawful’ act because of David’s authority (cf. notes on Matt. 12:4; Mark 2:25–26): how much more the Son of Man, the Messiah, who is said to be THE “lord of the Sabbath”?

    …the term there used for “change” simply means to transfer from one place to another — not to annul however…I wouldn’t find grounds to conclude that the Mosaic law is no longer in effect.

    What about what Paul says in Eph 2.15?

    [Jesus] brought an end [abolished/destroyed] to the commandments and demands found in Moses’ Teachings [Torah] so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace.

    Or like some here don’t you believe the Apostle Paul, Jesus’ spokesman?

    Mark C.

    Don’t tell me you keep Torah too?

  42. on 26 Aug 2011 at 9:43 amMark C.

    I’ll agree. Perfecting the inward action is the first step to perfecting the whole which includes the outer actions as well. It’s absurd to think that the Torah commands are some how annulled, as this goes completely contrary to the Tanach. However, Yeshua did very clearly teach how to understand the Love aspect of the Torah — making it’s application more righteous thereby (Is 42:21; Mt 5:17 et seq)

    He also taught there was a new covenant, which he ratified. Paul spoke of the weakness of the Law, namely that outward rules don’t change the heart, and because we are sinful we cannot keep the Law. Therefore the new covenant replaces the old, not because the Law was bad, but because it was impossible to keep.

    Don’t tell me you keep Torah too?

    No, I follow the new covenant (to the best of my ability).

  43. on 26 Aug 2011 at 9:54 amXavier

    Mark C.

    No, I follow the new covenant (to the best of my ability).

    What did you mean then by “Paul wrote that the Mosaic Law is not done away with, but ‘fulfilled'”? Texts like Eph 2.15 attest to something more emphatic that just a “fulfillment” do they not?

    As for Heb 7.12…the word “change” is used twice there first for the priesthood and second for the Law. So you both agree that the first time the word appears in that verse it means “change” but the second time [in the same verse] it means something different?

  44. on 26 Aug 2011 at 9:58 amXavier

    Mark C.

    Therefore the new covenant replaces the old, not because the Law was bad, but because it was impossible to keep.

    Why would God set up something that is “impossible to keep”? Can you provide any scripture attesting to this?

    Furthermore, why would the OT again and again teach people to obey and keep something that is “impossible to keep”?

  45. on 26 Aug 2011 at 1:42 pmAdoniqam

    Xavier

    Plucking grain on the Sabbath and eating it breaks the Law though…

    Can you show me in the written Torah where plucking grain on the Sabbath for food is prohibited? Thanks

    There is no analogy with “Oral Torah” here but of Torah itself. This is made clear in the parallel account of Mat 12

    The Gospels, especially the Gospel of Matthew is absolutely laden with references to the Oral Torah. This aspect of the Torah is what made the Pharisees who they were and still are, which is why Yeshua was consistently arguing with them over others — it was their application of the Oral Torah that was in error. Here’s an example of the Oral Torah being addressed in Matthew:

    Mat 5:21-22
    (21) Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
    (22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the sanhedrin: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

    Mat 5:43-44
    (43) Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
    (44) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    All of the above comes directly after Yeshua says to his disciples that they must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. So when he says “them (of old)” the antecedent is the scribes and Pharisees — the holders of the traditions and Oral Torah. This also comes after he just said that he came to fulfill the Torah (“fill full” as the word originally meant in English). Further, he stated that heaven and earth would pass before everything in the Torah failed to come about (v.18 Gr. “ginomai”).
    Then to make things even more concrete, he delegates authority to the scribes and Pharisees in Mt 23:1-3, telling his Jewish disciples to
    observe what they say because they sit in the seat of Moses just not to emulate their works. And of course Mt 5:23 clearly advocates offerrings at the altar, while v. 22 demonstrates the authority of the Sanhedrin on earth — and that’s even in his ‘But I say” revisionist statement.

    This is in line with Jesus’ teaching that the law was intended to serve God’s people, rather than God’s people being intended to serve the law (cf. Mark 2:27).

    By “serve” I take it you mean “be a slave to” rather than “follow”. In that case, we agree. Yeshua was applying it the way it was to be applied.

    Also,

    the written law supersedes the oral. So Yeshua appealing to the written in the case of Matthew 12 doesn’t prove the context of their argument as being a sola scriptura one. It merely demonstrates his appealing to the final authority to clarify the traditions built around it — The Oral, that is. In that case, it would’ve been an argument from scripture against the 39 melakhoth (forbidden Sabbatical activities). Even today in Ultra Orthodox groups, tearing toilet paper on Shabbat is forbidden, so they create a big pile of pretorn toilet paper before Shabbat. Now if someone had a bad case of diarrhea and didn’t have enough toilet paper to wipe with, should they just “walk it off” the rest of the day? 😉 Of course not! But it would be breaking Torah to tear some tp, wouldn’t it ? No, not in Yeshua’s philosophy wherein the Sabbath was not meant to be a burden to man’s life. Rather, as man is made in the image of God who rested, he should also rest and enjoy the day — without smelling up the rest of the house due to leftover “cling-ons” lol.

    This same understanding is applied in Mt 12, which basically sums up as: “be captivated by the Sabbath, but not held captive”. This understanding also is illustrated in the written account of David which Yeshua cited.

    What about what Paul says in Eph 2.15?

    [Jesus] brought an end [abolished/destroyed] to the commandments and demands found in Moses’ Teachings [Torah] so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace.

    To begin, I’d say get a better translation. The above, is an absolutely gruesome rendition of the Greek which says nothing about Moses or Jewish or anything like that — though I’ll agree with the “Jewish” and “non-Jewish” interpretation.
    Secondly, the word there for “Moses’ teachings” is the Greek term δογμασιν which Joseph explained rather well in post # 29. The word never once refers to the Torah throughout the entire body of inspired Greek literature. So the sense of the passage which is grounded in temple figures all the way to the end of the chapter is using the literal four foot high “wall of the Gentiles” that was erected by decree (δογμα) to keep Gentiles out of the main courtyard of Herod’s temple. Joseph gave the references for where it occurs in literature. Paul is using this in a figurative sense as something that Yeshua destroyed thus allowing all access to the holy of holies — Jew and Non-Jew alike, or as the literal Greek most accurately puts it, “Eph 2:17 And coming, He proclaimed “peace to you, the ones afar off (behind the wall), and to the ones near.” That letter may or may not actually be the source of the charge that Paul brought Greeks into the temple (Acts 21:28).

    Or like some here don’t you believe the Apostle Paul, Jesus’ spokesman?

    Sure, I believe Paul to be Yeshua’s spokesman. And that spokesman after all of his letters that he wrote, underwent a vow that required performing a sacrifice in order to prove to James and the other apostles that he did, in fact, continue to keep the Torah:

    Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest
    the law

    and in Yeshua’s spokesman’s words:

    Act 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

    Paul remained a Pharisee and had earlier taken a vow to prove it. So Paul and I get along just fine.

    Lastly and again, Yeshua could not have broken the Torah because if he had, he would not have been anymore innocent than you or I but a “blemished lamb”, for as James (2:10) puts it:

    For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

    Yeshua would be guilty of all, and thus be disqualified from being the one prophesied in the scriptures who was to magnify the Torah and make it honorable (Is 42:21), and be the guilt offering of Is 53 because he would incurred his own guilt that would’ve needed it’s own form of atonement. So, when someone says Yeshua “broke the law/Torah”, they actually perform the worst degradation possible to him as the messiah and completely undermine his mission as the innocent one who takes the transgressions of everyone else (including Israel) upon himself.

  46. on 26 Aug 2011 at 1:43 pmAdoniqam

    whoops apparently I missed an somewhere. 🙁

  47. on 26 Aug 2011 at 2:18 pmXavier

    Adoniqam

    Can you show me in the written Torah where plucking grain on the Sabbath for food is prohibited?

    The point is that Jesus considered it breaking the Sabbath. His answer to the Pharisees point to this and not to some invisible analogy to “Oral Torah”, as you suggested.

    The connection to David is not so much about the Sabbath day as such but about how David broke the Law [Torah]!

    To begin, I’d say get a better translation. The above, is an absolutely gruesome rendition of the Greek…

    Have you studied Koine Greek? How about Hebrew?

    So the sense of the passage which is grounded in temple figures all the way to the end of the chapter is using the literal four foot high “wall of the Gentiles” that was erected by decree (δογμα) to keep Gentiles out of the main courtyard of Herod’s temple.

    I disagree and side with the majority commentary pertaining to this section of the text:

    The additional mention of commandments and ordinances identifies this as the Mosaic law, which included many commandments that served to separate Israel from the other nations. Thus the law was a “dividing wall” (v. 14) which Christ has abolished or rendered powerless both by fulfilling it and by removing believers from the law’s condemnation (see Matt. 5:17; Rom. 8:1; Heb. 9:11–14; 10:1–10). ESV Study Bible

    [Paul] spokesman after all of his letters that he wrote, underwent a vow that required performing a sacrifice in order to prove to James and the other apostles that he did, in fact, continue to keep the Torah…

    If this is true why did his own people still reject him? Later prompting Paul to ask: “if I am still preaching that circumcision is necessary, why am I still being persecuted?” Gal 5.11

    What about when he instructs Christians not to let Torah-keepers judge them when it comes to dietary laws, Jewish festivals, New Moons or a Sabbath day [Col 2.16; cp. Gal 4.10]?

  48. on 26 Aug 2011 at 3:31 pmAdoniqam

    Xavier

    The point is that Jesus considered it breaking the Sabbath. His answer to the Pharisees point to this and not to some invisible analogy to “Oral Torah”, as you suggested.

    No, he didn’t. That’s what you want him to consider it. The whole reason he brought up scripture accounts of others “breaking” a command, was to show that under the right circumstances certain commands are of less priority than others, which is why he brought up the priests in the temple that “profane” the Sabbath (according to the stringency adhered to by the Pharisees) even though the Torah itself allows it. So Yeshua calls the priests “profaners” of the Sabbath, even though the Torah explicitly commands them to perform sacrifices — which was the crux of his intentionally hyperbolic accusation. Seriously ponder this — why would he say the priests profane the Sabbath when it is an actual written command?
    Further, if he did consider it breaking the Sabbath he wouldn’t have called his disciples blameless (12:7), making him a liar.

    And again, please show me where in the written scriptures that plucking grain is forbidden on Shabbat. I bet you can’t 😉

    The connection to David is not so much about the Sabbath day as such but about how David broke the Law [Torah]!

    Addendum: And was still considered guiltless, even in those pre-Jesus, “under the law” times! Interesting huh?

    Have you studied Koine Greek? How about Hebrew?

    Yep. I’ve studied Koine Greek a bit, and can read Hebrew proficiently. I take it you do also, or no?

    I disagree and side with the majority commentary pertaining to this section of the text

    Hey that’s fine. I’m not here to convert you. But while you’re at it, you wanna reconsider the Trinity beings the majority espouses it. We they always right 🙂

    And again, the word δογμα never once refers to the Torah in the NT or Tanach — תורה ≠ δογμα very simple. See Joseph’s post for every place that it occurs.

    If this is true why did his own people still reject him? Later prompting Paul to ask: “if I am still preaching that circumcision is necessary, why am I still being persecuted?” Gal 5.11

    You may wanna consult a timeline here where you will find that Acts 21 on ward is about 10 years after he wrote Galatians. Further, Galatians was to gentiles who were experiencing an influx of false brothers trying to convert them to an unbelieving sect of Pharisaism.

    What about when he instructs Christians not to let Torah-keepers judge them when it comes to dietary laws, Jewish festivals, New Moons or a Sabbath day [Col 2.16; cp. Gal 4.10]?

    What about it? Again, he was talking to Gentiles in those passage, the latter of which actually has to do with pagan holidays as is evidenced by the fact that he relates them to “those which are not gods” they had once been bound by. Also Joseph already explained Col 2. Reread his post

    And again, if Yeshua broke Torah then we’re all dead in our sins bro, because the Messiah hasn’t came 😉

  49. on 26 Aug 2011 at 3:35 pmAdoniqam

    Okay time to switch browsers now. There’s nothing better than screwed up posts.

  50. on 26 Aug 2011 at 3:35 pmAdoniqam

    Test

  51. on 26 Aug 2011 at 3:36 pmAdoniqam

    Does anyone know how to break the italic tag on from a previous post?

    – Thanks

  52. on 26 Aug 2011 at 3:39 pmMark C.

    Adoniqam,

    There was a mistyped tag in your post, but I fixed it.

  53. on 26 Aug 2011 at 3:44 pmAdoniqam

    Thanks Mark C.

  54. on 26 Aug 2011 at 3:52 pmXavier

    Adoniqam

    Seriously ponder this — why would he say the priests profane the Sabbath when it is an actual written command?

    He is merely stating a fact. Reason King David & his followers and Jesus and his are not like them is because they have a greater authority to do what they did.

    I take it you do also, or no?

    No I don’t. I am naive enough to think that most modern biblical translators and Hebrew/Greek lexicographers are good enough.

    But while you’re at it, you wanna reconsider the Trinity beings the majority espouses it.

    Unfortunately, scripture does not support it. Remember, you only need 1% truth to fool most of the people most of the time. 😉

    …Galatians was to gentiles who were experiencing an influx of false brothers trying to convert them to an unbelieving sect of Pharisaism.

    You mean Judaizers? The same ones he refers to as “dogs/mutilators of the flesh” in Phil 3.2? Or don’t you practice nor teach physical circumcision like most Sabbatarians?

    …which actually has to do with pagan holidays as is evidenced by the fact that he relates them to “those which are not gods” they had once been bound by.

    I have read this argument before but to what “pagan holidays”, other than his Jewish roots tradition, would Paul be referring to as “food/dietary laws, Jewish festivals, New Moons or a Sabbath day”?

    …if Yeshua broke Torah then we’re all dead in our sins bro, because the Messiah hasn’t came…

    Just as it was not a sin for the temple priests to break Torah, how much more the Messiah, who is said to be the Melchizedek figure in the NT? That is why Christians today, under the New Covenant and the law of Messiah Jesus we live by, have been freed from Torah. As Anthony Buzzard, a former Sabbattarian himself, has observed:

    We may well say that the law, by exempting the priests from the Sabbath commandment when they worked in the Temple, foreshadowed the Christians’ freedom from the Sabbath law while they now carry out God’s work every day of the week. Just as the Sabbath of the Old Testament was a shadow of Christ (Col. 2:17), so were the sacrifices (Heb. 10:1). And the priests’ exemption from Sabbath observance pointed to a time when those who obey God would do so by complying with principles different from those given to Israel.

    http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/sabbathbook.pdf

  55. on 26 Aug 2011 at 4:33 pmAdoniqam

    He is merely stating a fact. Reason King David & his followers and Jesus and his are not like them is because they have a greater authority to do what they did.

    David was not exempt from the Torah which is why he needed to repent from breaking it. Further, he was excluded from building the temple because he broke a prime rule of it — thou shalt not kill. So while we agree that he had authority, let’s not oversimplify things. Further, David’s sons are called “priests” in the Tanach, so perhaps there’s more to David than what you may understand. Also, he wrote in the Psalms “The proud have had me greatly in derision: yet have I not declined from thy law. (Ps 119:51) for a reason: He kept the Torah. Yet, he was found blameless for eat shew bread. Why? because one matter superseded another — Yeshua’s whole argument in Mt 12.

    No I don’t. I am naive enough to think that most modern biblical translators and Hebrew/Greek lexicographers are good enough.

    Check out Friberg’s Lexicon. He has a less traditional approach to the Greek, based upon more research and less tradition — look up Dogma.

    You mean Judaizers? The same ones he refers to as “dogs/mutilators of the flesh” in Phil 3.2? Or don’t you practice nor teach physical circumcision like most Sabbatarians?

    Yeah those same dogs and mutilators are called “evil workers”, obviously not referring to anyone who keeps Torah which would include Paul and James and the rest of the elders, as I showed already in the Acts 21 pericope. Further, if Torah keeping was evil as well as circumcision, then Paul was evil because he circumcized Timothy and took a vow in the Temple to prove he kept it. There’s no way around this.

    I have read this argument before but to what “pagan holidays”, other than his Jewish roots tradition, would Paul be referring to as “food/dietary laws, Jewish festivals, New Moons or a Sabbath day”?

    Sorry but the מועדי יהוה “appointments of Adonai” are not pagan (Lv 23:1-3 and ff.) And If this is what Paul is saying here, then he needs to be kicked out of the NT without exception. But he’s not. I was referring to Galatians 4 not Colossians 2. You seem to have conflated the two on accident, no problems. The Galatians were Pagan Gauls initially. So the only other alternative would be their own pagan times they were keeping, which would explain the phrase “them which are not gods”. Again, see post 29 for Colossians 2.

    Just as it was not a sin for the temple priests to break Torah, how much more the Messiah, who is said to be the Melchizedek figure in the NT? That is why Christians today, under the New Covenant and the law of Messiah Jesus we live by, have been freed from Torah.

    Multiple problem arise in this argument:

    (1) The priests didn’t break the Torah, as the Torah itself expressly allows them to sacrifice and in fact commands them to do so. So by them not sacrificing they then would be breaking the Torah (Nm 28:9 et seq.)
    (2) The protasis (just as it was not a sin…) of your hypothesis being neutralized, cancels out the apodosis (then how much more).
    (3) The Messiah himself said he came to make the Torah “filled up/full” (Gr. plerosai) in Mt 5:17. Further, he states that not one word will pass from the Torah until all in it is brought about (ginomai). That means that if there is even one prophecy in the Torah that still needs to be fulfilled, then the whole thing is still intact. Is there any thing that needs to be fulfilled still? Absolutely, there is. Have the tribes been gathered to Shiloh yet? (Gn 49:10) — nope. Has Satan been crushed yet by the seed of the woman (Gn 3:15)? — nope (Rm 16:10; Rv 20). Has Yeshua smitten the corner’s of Moab, taken over Edom, and Seir? (Nm 24:17 et seq) — nope. How about all of the lost tribes returning even without Shiloh? (Dt 30:3 et seq) — nope, nope, and nope.
    (4) “That is why Christians today, under the New Covenant and the law of Messiah Jesus we live by….” Really law of Jesus? Okay then:

    Mat 5:19
    (19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    And

    Mat 23:1-3
    (1) Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
    (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
    (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

    I should see you next Shabbat then? 🙂

  56. on 26 Aug 2011 at 4:45 pmMark C.

    What did you mean then by “Paul wrote that the Mosaic Law is not done away with, but ‘fulfilled’”? Texts like Eph 2.15 attest to something more emphatic that just a “fulfillment” do they not?

    Eph. 2:
    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, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
    16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

    What he abolished was the enmity that was inherent in the Law. But that doesn’t mean the whole Law was abolished as if the Law were something bad.

    Rom. 7:12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

    Matt. 5:17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

    Matt. 7:12 In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

    Rom. 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

    Rom. 13:
    8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
    9 For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
    10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

    Gal. 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”

    As for Heb 7.12…the word “change” is used twice there first for the priesthood and second for the Law. So you both agree that the first time the word appears in that verse it means “change” but the second time [in the same verse] it means something different?

    I’m not sure what you mean by “it means something different.” Change means change. The context of that verse is talking about the priesthood. The Law as a whole, though, was not abolished but fulfilled, as we see in the above verses. Walking in love and walking by the spirit are how we fulfill the Law now, which is superior to trying to obey the LETTER and all the rules and regs. That’s how it was “changed.”

    Rom. 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

    Rom. 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

    Rom. 8:
    1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
    2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
    3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
    4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

    II Cor. 3:
    6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

    Why would God set up something that is “impossible to keep”? Can you provide any scripture attesting to this?

    Acts 15:10 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?

    Rom. 3:
    9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
    10 as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
    11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

    19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
    20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
    21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
    22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
    23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
    24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

    28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
    29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
    30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
    31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

    Rom. 7:
    5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
    6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
    7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”
    8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
    9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
    10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
    11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
    12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
    13 Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.
    14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

    Furthermore, why would the OT again and again teach people to obey and keep something that is “impossible to keep”?

    The Law was given to Israel to provide them with a code of conduct and also the sacrificial system to cover them when they sinned (since God knew they would sin). But all that was only a temporary shadow of the New Covenant that was to come. Jesus taught about and made possible the new way of living – walking in love and walking by the spirit. Now under the New Covenant we are not slaves to the LETTER of the Law, but live by the spirit, and have the blood of Jesus to cover us when we don’t.

    For more on this subject, see the series of articles on my website:
    http://godskingdomfirst.org/KingdomLiving.htm

  57. on 26 Aug 2011 at 6:08 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Adoniqam

    And again, the word δογμα never once refers to the Torah in the NT or Tanach — תורה ≠ δογμα very simple.

    In Eph 2 the “middle wall” which divided Jew and Gentile is defined precisely as the Torah [nomos] contained in “dogmas”. So clearly “dogma” here is associated with some part of Torah.

    The parallel in Col 2 connects the “dogmas” with “holy days, new moons and Sabbath”. These elements of the Torah did, indeed, seperate Jew from Gentile. And this part of Torah is now “abolished” [destroy, bring to an end, do away with”, Bauer Greek Lexicon, p 483].

    …if Torah keeping was evil as well as circumcision, then Paul was evil because he circumcized Timothy and took a vow in the Temple to prove he kept it. There’s no way around this.

    Paul makes 2 clear statements about circumcision. He warns “if you get circumcized you will be obliged to keep the whole Law”. Secondly, “if I am still preaching circumcision why am I being persecuted?” He was willing to circumcise Timothy as an exception “because of the Jews”.

    You must explain how Paul is teaching Gen 17 circumcision when he says that he is not doing so! You are reading the Law in the letter and Paul is reading it in the spirit. That is the difference.

    Joseph

    In other words, we should let only the body of the Messiah judge us! Can we as brethren in Messiah judge each other? Yes we can.

    Paul said “let no one judge you”. You then say “the body of Christ should judge you”. Clearly “the body of Christ” is comprised of someone[s]!! It is nonsense to say “let no one judge you but let the Church members judge you”!

    Notice too that Adam IS the “shadow/type” of Jesus, “the one to come”. So your point about “are” does not work.

    It is actually disobedience to Jesus, in Paul, to allow anybody to tell us to keep the Jewish calendar.

  58. on 26 Aug 2011 at 6:53 pmAdoniqam

    In Eph 2 the “middle wall” which divided Jew and Gentile is defined precisely as the Torah [nomos] contained in “dogmas”. So clearly “dogma” here is associated with some part of Torah.

    Greetings. That is an assumption on your part. First, nomos doesn’t automatically equate to the Law of Moses — it is a general term for “law” and is even used to refer Is 28 by Paul in 1Co 14:21-22. Further, this nomos is contained in these δογμασιν. Again, the Torah is never called a “dogma” in any place in the LXX or NT. Therefore whatever these dogmas (man made opinions) are, the nomos being referred to here is subsequent to those dogmas which were annulled.

    The parallel in Col 2 connects the “dogmas” with “holy days, new moons and Sabbath”. These elements of the Torah did, indeed, seperate Jew from Gentile. And this part of Torah is now “abolished”

    Of course they’re connected. Dogmas are always connected to ritual. But Paul even defines the term for us in Col. 2:20-22 where they are said to be commandments and doctrines of men — the exact same terminology YEshua used to describe the handwashing ritual of the Pharisee in Mt 15. These commandments and doctrines of men were being applied to believers by unbelievers. Therefore the believers weren’t to let the unbelievers judge them matters. Why? Because the bill of debt that rested over us was lifted already, but those unbelievers and possibly pagans were attempting to judge the Colossians in their own matters of celebrating the feasts.

    Also, if these did separate Jew from Gentile then why will all flesh be keeping them in the future 😉 (Is 66:22-23; Zech 14:15-21; Lk 22:15-16; Ezk 45:21-25?

    And again, the Messiah himself said he came to make the Torah “filled up/full” (Gr. plerosai) in Mt 5:17. Further, he states that not one word will pass from the Torah until all in it is brought about (ginomai). That means that if there is even one prophecy in the Torah that still needs to be fulfilled, then the whole thing is still intact. Is there any thing that needs to be fulfilled still? Absolutely, there is. Have the tribes been gathered to Shiloh yet? (Gn 49:10) — nope. Has Satan been crushed yet by the seed of the woman (Gn 3:15)? — nope (Rm 16:10; Rv 20). Has Yeshua smitten the corner’s of Moab, taken over Edom, and Seir? (Nm 24:17 et seq) — nope. How about all of the lost tribes returning even without Shiloh? (Dt 30:3 et seq) — nope, nope, and nope. This explains why Paul was so adamant about proving that he kept Torah and didn’t teach Jews to forsake it that he took a vow to prove it to James and the elders — all Torah keepers.

    Paul makes 2 clear statements about circumcision. He warns “if you get circumcized you will be obliged to keep the whole Law”. Secondly, “if I am still preaching circumcision why am I being persecuted?” He was willing to circumcise Timothy as an exception “because of the Jews”.

    Okay, so what? Again, he’s talking to Gentiles that were going through problems, when he made that statement. That has nothing to do with his position on the Torah for Israel.

    And the prophetic references I gave all speak of the future when all flesh will come to learn of God’s Torah at His holy mountain (Is 2:1-5); Is 66:22-23; Ezk 40-47; and many others.

    You must explain how Paul is teaching Gen 17 circumcision when he says that he is not doing so! You are reading the Law in the letter and Paul is reading it in the spirit. That is the difference.

    Actually, I did already. It all has to do with who his audience is. Paul took a vow to prove that he kept the Torah and even shouted out that he was a Pharisee in the present tense (Acts 23:5). Further, it’s rather interesting that God never once said anything about the Torah ceasing in the Tanach. Why not? Because it never did. It still persists today.

  59. on 26 Aug 2011 at 6:57 pmAdoniqam

    Correction: Dogmas *of the law* are always connected to ritual.

  60. on 26 Aug 2011 at 7:14 pmAdoniqam

    Also, I thought you may find this useful from Friberg’s Lexicon:

    28580 χειρόγραφον, ου, τό strictly handwritten document; in legal matters a promissory note, record of indebtedness, bond; figuratively in CO 2.14 not as the law itself, but as the record of charges (for breaking God’s law), which stood against us and which God symbolically removed by “nailing it to the cross,” handwritten account, record of debts.

  61. on 26 Aug 2011 at 8:14 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Adoniqam

    So let’s be clear. You are teaching physical circumcision as mandated by Gen 17 for Jew & Gentile alike? Please answer yes or no.

    And please confirm that when you go out and plant churches, as per the Great comission, you are insisting on Gen 17 for every male. Yes or no?

    Will you please now deal with the masculine participle in Mat 7.19:

    …thus cleansing all foods [a Markan comment and part of holy scripture]…

    You have not dealt with the 2 statements of Paul at all in which it is impossible that he was enforcing Gen 17.

    In the future, sacrifices will be also offered in a temple.

    Lasrlt, deal with this specific point please. In Gal 5.3 Paul says:

    Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

  62. on 26 Aug 2011 at 8:48 pmJoseph

    Anthony,

    Paul said “let no one judge you”. You then say “the body of Christ should judge you”. Clearly “the body of Christ” is comprised of someone[s]!! It is nonsense to say “let no one judge you but let the Church members judge you”!

    “BUT the Body of Christ”… BUT!

    Does a man not pass a judgment on his brother when he sees his brother in sin? Of course! But when this is the case, we must restore this man in gentleness:

    Matthew 18:15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

    1 Corinthians 6 1Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

    Gala 6:1 (NKJV) Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who [are] spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.

    Jame 5:19 (NKJV) Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins

    Don’t let these pagans judge us in these things. This indicates that the Gentiles in Colosse were keeping God’s commandments as they should.

    18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
    19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

    Verse 18 is a mirror of verse 8. This scripture further proves that Paul is not talking about taking away God’s commandments in verse 16, but rather the commandments of men such as worshiping of angels…and here we are talking about the BODY of Messiah again! This is consistent with what we talked about above in verse 17 and why it should be translated “body”. A variation of this word (“soma”) is “somatikos” (which is Strong’s #4985). This word is also translated “bodily” in verse 9 above. Therefore, verses 18 and 19 are a mirror of verses 8 and 9 above. This shows us that the context of what Paul was saying in verse 8 and 9 has not changed. Therefore, these verses are good summary: Stand fast in God’s commandments and shun the commandments and doctrines of men.

    20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Messiah from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances

    Remember back in verse 14 when asked, “What ordinances of men?” These are among the ordinances that were blotted out:

    21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
    22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

    Again, these are the ordinances of men that were blotted out. Taken out of the way. They are all commandments and doctrines of men. Not God’s commandments. To further prove this point, let us look again at the Greek words that are translated “ordinances”…

    In verse 14 the Greek word that is translated “ordinances” is the Greek word “Dogma” which means “ordinances”

    In verse 21 the Greek word that is translated “be subject to ordinances” is “Dogmatizo” which means “be subject to ordinances”.

    The root word (Dogma, Ordinance) remains constant. The only difference is in the phrase.

    23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
    3:1 If ye then be risen with Messiah, seek those things which are above, where Messiah sitteth on the right hand of God.
    2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
    3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Messiah in God.

    So in conclusion, Paul is saying that we should beware lest any man spoil us through these commandments, philosophies and doctrines of men. For Yeshua took them out of the way and nailed them to the tree thereby forgiving us for accepting them. Because of this we should let no man judge us for keeping God’s commandments unless they are a part of the body of the Messiah. Therefore we should hold fast to the Head of that body, namely Yeshua from whom we are nourished and do not subject ourselves to pagan ordinances. For even though these have an appearance of wisdom, they are of no value. So we should set our minds on things above, not on the things of the world.

    Either way we look at it, as Adoniqam points out, dogma does not refer to Torah.

    Notice too that Adam IS the “shadow/type” of Jesus, “the one to come”. So your point about “are” does not work.

    Can you clarify the context of what you mean by this? I don’t see the parallel.

    It is actually disobedience to Jesus, in Paul, to allow anybody to tell us to keep the Jewish calendar.

    This is the most over-gross misrepresentation of Paul I have ever heard. Paul followed Jewish calendar!

    If that is the logic you are going to take, then I take it you don’t believe Jesus when he says…

    “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

    Tell me, what commandments is Yeshua talking about here?

    Furthermore, after the resurrection, Yeshua tells his disciples to go and do what unto the gentiles?…

    Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
    20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

    What commandments did Yeshua teach his followers?

    The problem I see with your position on application of the Torah, is you have taken Paul’s letters and made your own Torah. Rather than using Yeshua/Tanach as your base, you have decided to pick and choose what commandments suit you best. We should interpret Paul in light of Messiah and what scripture he learned from and obeyed, not in light of Paul’s techniques in proselytism to gentiles who are new in the faith. Milk is for the babe, we must grow up in God’s ways to be able to digest the strong meat….

    Hbr 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
    13 For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
    14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

  63. on 26 Aug 2011 at 8:57 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Joseph

    With respect you have lost the entire point in a flurry of words!

    It is still nonsense to say “let NOONE AT ALL judge you in the area of calendar BUT let the Church members judge you”. You have comitted yourself to the nonsense that Church members are NOT ANYONE!

    By all means go into the world and teach everyone to observe the New Moons. If that is what you think you have to do. But I think you are failing entirely to understand the New Covenant.

    Your restranslation of the Greek does not convince me nor thousands of scholars over 2 000 years. You are avoiding the obvious sense. Coomands to go back under Moses are in the New Covenant nothing but the commandments of men! And no more!

    You must convice us that Paul is fully supporting the circumcision of ALL Gentiles as commanded by Torah in Gen 17. Try persuading us and all Bible readers of that fact. And I think you will rethink.

  64. on 26 Aug 2011 at 8:57 pmMark C.

    Anthony,

    With regard to Col. 2 [KJV]:
    16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
    17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

    The argument that some have presented here is that the “is” in v. 17 should not be there (italics in KJV), and thus it is saying, “Let no one judge you [in these things] but the Body of Christ.” In other words, don’t let outsiders judge you; no one but the Body (the Church) should be the judge.

    Personally, I don’t find this argument convincing, though. But I don’t know enough Greek grammar and whether such a translation/interpretation is upheld by the Greek. Perhaps you could shed some light on it?

  65. on 26 Aug 2011 at 9:10 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Mark C.

    …I don’t know enough Greek grammar and whether such a translation/interpretation is upheld by the Greek. Perhaps you could shed some light on it?

    First, common sense. Paul did not say “do not let outsiders judge you”. He said, “do not let ANYONE AT ALL” tell you what to do in the area of Jewish calendar. It should be obvious that Paul does not immediately contradict himself. That church members who are “someone” should judge them.

    Non-linguists and non-specialists have been fed the false notion that a word inserted in English is by definition, neccesarily wrong! The obvious contrast in Col 2 is between “the shadow”, which is NOW a negative thing, and “the substance”, which belongs to Christ. That same contrast is found in Heb 8; 10.

    Paul contrasts “the body/substance” which belongs to Jesus with the outdated “shadows”. He has just finished speaking of circumcision made “without hands”. That is, physicial circumcision is NO MORE! And “spiritual circumcision” is the only valid form remaining, It is “the cross”, Paul says in Col 2, which has made this HUGE difference!

    We must continue as Paul did to fight the false regression to Moses which undermines the core of Christianity.

    If you do not add the word “is”, which is sometimes required to make good sense in English, you are left with patent nonsense! That the “someone[s] of the Church” are to judge you but “noone is to judge you”!

    I wrote to Onford scholars 50 years ago about this and they agreed with my point. That it is desperately limping to say that Paul was urging Church members to judge.

  66. on 26 Aug 2011 at 9:17 pmMark C.

    Anthony,

    Thanks. That makes sense.

    Is there a different construct in Greek for when someone does mean something like, “No one should do this but a certain group”?

  67. on 26 Aug 2011 at 9:21 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Mark C.

    Is there a different construct in Greek for when someone does mean something like, “No one should do this but a certain group”?

    No. If “noone” is to do something, that includes those persons who form the body of Christ, just common sense.

    (Note: the KJV is misleading with “let no man”, Greek says, “do not let anyone [i.e. whoever it is]”.)

    The sad thing is that the Church is constantly deivided when peoiple disagree on fundamentally easy issues like water baptism, simply a matter of obedience and on which day to meet!

    The united testimony of the body of CHrist is automatically undermined on these and other easy issues. I think we are making progress, however.

    At fault, lurking, is the lamentable effects of previous associations where sometimes an irresponsible and untrained guru held sway.

  68. on 26 Aug 2011 at 9:49 pmAdoniqam

    Anthony

    So let’s be clear. You are teaching physical circumcision as mandated by Gen 17 for Jew & Gentile alike? Please answer yes or no.

    No, I am not. My position is the Jewish position: Gentiles are not all bound to keep Torah, but eventually they all will during the millennium. In fact, Paul who was a Pharisee until his death (Acts 23:5) says clearly:

    (KJV) 1 Corinthians 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

    Jews remain Jews, and Gentiles remain Gentiles (unless they choose to convert). But during the millennium, all will be Torah keepers. My whole contention is with the idiotic notion that Yeshua somehow nullified or even broke the Torah — something not all prophesied in the TN”K, in fact quite the contrary (Ez 40-47; Is 2:1-5, ch.56, 66:22-23; Zec 8:23, 14:15-21; Mt 5:17-19; Lk 22:15-16; etc).

    And please confirm that when you go out and plant churches, as per the Great comission, you are insisting on Gen 17 for every male. Yes or no?

    See my last comment ^^^

    Will you please now deal with the masculine participle in Mat 7.19:

    …thus cleansing all foods [a Markan comment and part of holy scripture]…

    The cleansing here refers to the form of defilement that the discussion is based upon — ritual defilement. This has nothing to do with innate uncleanness of unclean species, but the koinosai (vv 15&18) in agreement with the context of handwashing. Further, Yeshua clearly tells us what it means in parallel’s summary:

    (YNG) Matthew 15:20 these are the things defiling the man; but to eat with unwashen hands doth not defile the man.’

    Lastly, if one chooses to argue otherwise, and put such concepts into the mouth of a Jewish Rabbi (who would’ve been stoned on the spot btw) they run into a whole bunch of problems:

    (1) The disciples commanded Gentiles to not eat blood, things sacrificed to idols, and strangled foods.
    (2) Some 13 years later, Peter had a vision and still hadn’t eaten anything “common or unclean” and even argued with God about it.
    (3) Paul tells people to abstain from foods that one knows are sacrificed to idols
    (4) The book of Revelation complains about those who are teaching people to fornicate and eat things sacrificed to idols.

    All of these fiercely contradict the idea that Yeshua taught contrary to the Kashrut (God forbid). Read it in it’s context — Jewish context.

    You have not dealt with the 2 statements of Paul at all in which it is impossible that he was enforcing Gen 17.

    No need to. He was speaking to Gentiles which I already expressed were not obligated to be circumcised.

    In the future, sacrifices will be also offered in a temple.

    I’m glad we agree; may it come speedily in our days, so support Israeli architecture 🙂

    Lastly, deal with this specific point please. In Gal 5.3 Paul says:

    Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

    There were false brethren in Gal 2 who were really trying to make gentiles converts of their own. And according to Paul, these Gentiles were “trying to be justified by the law”. <– There's the key to the problem.

    As I leave for Shabbat, let me bid you all happy Sabbath:

    (KJV) Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

    Shabbat Shalom lekulam

  69. on 26 Aug 2011 at 9:51 pmMark C.

    Thanks, Anthony.

    I was just searching possible similar phrases in the NT, and there is indeed no instance of “no one but….” However, I did find “no one EXCEPT…” which is not the same Greek word. It is ei me and is used in two verses:

    1Co 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.

    1Co 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

    But in Col. 2:17, the word translated “but” is de, which is a primary particle, and is translated by several different words, but NEVER in the sense of “except.” I’m thinking that using “but” as “except” is a more modern usage. Is that right?

  70. on 26 Aug 2011 at 9:52 pmAdoniqam

    Also, you wanna read a well founded article in the Col 2 issue, check this out: http://parshanuth.blogspot.com/2010/05/exegesis-colossians-213-17.html

    Click on the link there. It’s PDF.

    Peace

  71. on 26 Aug 2011 at 10:22 pmXavier

    Adoniqam

    I am sure you have been quoted this many times but here goes…

    For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. Jam 2.10

    It is clear that Torah was considered an interdependent whole, and any infraction constituted a breaking of the law as a whole. Circumcision was an intergral part of Torah keeping since it both defined and set apart “the people of God” from people of other nations/religions!

  72. on 26 Aug 2011 at 10:26 pmAdoniqam

    Agreed, Xavier. That’s why we need Yeshua’s sacrifice 🙂

    Further, James was writing to the twelve tribes (1:1-2) and calls their congregation a “synagogue” (2:2). He was writing to fellow Jews because he kept Torah as is clear from Paul’s vow.

    Okay Shalom!

  73. on 26 Aug 2011 at 11:37 pmMark C.

    Adoniqam,

    I have a couple of comments on the article to which you posted a link.

    For one thing, the article said:

    Most Christians assume that the phrase “the handwriting with the decrees, or Greek cheirographon tois dogmasin, refers to the “Law of Moshe.”

    However, this assertion is easily refuted if one appreciates the context of Colossians 2. According to Paul, the believers in Colosse were being beguiled with enticing words and led away by the philosophy and vain deceit according to the tradition of men. Finally, Paul also refers to the origin of the deception as the commandments and doctrines of men.

    Succinctly stated, nowhere in the entire Bible is the Law of Moshe (Torah) referred to as either the tradition, commandments, or doctrines of men. On the contrary, it is expressly stated to be God’s Law which was given to the nation of Israel by the mediatorship of Moshe.

    The problem with this is that while the first several verses (including v.8) speak of commandments of men, when you get down to verse 11, he is using terms which specifically refer to the Mosaic Law, such as circumcision, and ordinances. Then when he gets to v.16 he specifically speaks of holy days, new moons, and sabbath days. It’s all about the Mosaic Law at that point. The Law was indeed a written bill of debt, in that it identified sin, as Paul spoke of in Rom. 7.

    In addition, the article presents a chart showing the various translations of the last part of Col. 2:17. It claims that “the translations vary greatly in meaning,” but in fact they all agree that the sense is that Christ is the reality or substance which casts the shadow.

    The article then has a chart listing the occurrences of “The Body of Christ” followed by this summary:

    Romans 7:4 and I Corinthians 10:16 refer to the actual body of Christ, in addition to Hebrews 10:10 which adds the worde “Jesus” in the phrase. On the other hand, both I Corinthians 12:27 and Ephesians 4:12 refer to the Church which is the spiritual body of the Messiah.

    So only two verses out of five refer to the Church, while three refer to Christ’s physical body. We cannot therefore conclude that the phrase in Col. 2:17 must refer to the Church.

    The article makes the following conclusion:

    There is certainly no basis for translating the Greek word soma as “substance,” as the Greek word would have been ousia, a word used twice in the New Testament, 211 times by Philo, and a word which was well known to later Christian theologians, particularly those who authored the Nicene Creed (they used the word often). These theologians referred to Christ as being homoousios, that is, “of the same substance” or “of the same essence” with the Father.

    First of all, the word ousia is only used twice in the NT and refer to a person’s goods (Luke 15:12-13). It is the from the feminine of on, which means “being” as in that which constitutes a person.

    The reason that word is not used in Col. 2:17 is that the substance of which God and/or Christ is made is not the point, from the context. The NASB renders it, “things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.” The KJV has it, “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” The NIV has it, “These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” The whole point is that it is contrasting the shadow with the body, substance or reality that casts that shadow.

    This contrast is also seen in Hebrews 10, where the thing that casts the shadow is actually Christ’s literal body.

    Hebrews 10:
    1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
    2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
    3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
    4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
    5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
    6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
    7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
    8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
    9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
    10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

    The sacrificial system in the Law of Moses was a shadow of the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ’s body. Reading in Col. 2, we see the same concept put forth:

    Col. 2:
    13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
    14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
    15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

    That is why we are to let NO ONE judge us with respect to anything in the Old Covenant Law, which is a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.

    The whole idea of reading these verses as “Let no one but the Body of Christ judge you…” is not upheld by the Greek, as has been dealt with above. I think it’s pretty clear.

  74. on 27 Aug 2011 at 6:59 amXavier

    Adoniqam

    He was writing to fellow Jews because he kept Torah as is clear from Paul’s vow.

    But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? Gal 5.11

  75. on 27 Aug 2011 at 10:17 amAnthony Buzzard

    Mark, good point. It is nonsense to say let no one judge you but let the church body judge you!

    You are right, Paul could easily say let no one judge you except the church!

    These are demonic strongholds which divide and confuse, just like the argument against water baptism.

    Sabbath keeping creates two churches and batpized and unbaptized members are not possible for PAUL.

    The wreckage is created by the Herbert W. Armstrong and the Wierwille’s whose guru style playing on the ignorance of folk divides and confuses.

    Your article on baptism ought to convince everyone! Sorry you had to write so long on such a simple issue.

    Do you get good results from it? I bet you do.
    Anthony.

  76. on 27 Aug 2011 at 11:47 amAdoniqam

    Xavier, I already dealt with that in post 48. Paul was speaking to Gentiles to whom he did not preach circumcision. He then took a Nazirite vow under the command of James and the elders to prove he was Shomer Torah (Torah observant) — irrefutable proof of the Torah’s continuity from the Gentile apostle himself.

    Shabbat Shalom

  77. on 27 Aug 2011 at 11:51 amWolfgang

    Anthony,

    the “Armstrong and Wierwille’s … divides and confuses” …

    how much might your teaching confuse those who are of a different theological background? Or do you simply insist that it always is the other theological position which confuses, but never yours?

    Btw, I would say that the position regarding the kingdom as set forth in the article above with its list of 10 attributes is confusing in light of various rather plain and clear statements in Scripture …

    PS: Also please note, I am not a follower of Wierwille and haven’t been for decades — in case you still insist on such an assumption. In addition, I am also not a follower of Buzzard …. as some folks here most certainly are (in a teacher – student relationship sense )

  78. on 27 Aug 2011 at 11:58 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    as some folks here most certainly are (in a teacher – student relationship sense )

    And darn proud of it!! 😉

    Your not a follower of Wierwille? Yet you share his lone-wolf anti-water baptism views? Ooookkkk….

  79. on 27 Aug 2011 at 12:05 pmXavier

    Adoniqam

    So let me get this straight. You believe that circumcision is only applicable for the Jewish-Christian and not Gentile-Christian?

    You also said that the “wall of hostility” of Eph 2, referring to the Gentile court wall of the Temple, has been destroyed/broken down. If so, what does scripture mean when it says there is neither Jew nor Gentile and that we are a “new creation” in Messiah?

    So are Gentiles supposed to keep the rest of Torah [Sabbath, etc.] but not circumcision?

  80. on 27 Aug 2011 at 12:06 pmWolfgang

    Anthony,

    At fault, lurking, is the lamentable effects of previous associations where sometimes an irresponsible and untrained guru held sway.

    of course it could only be lamentable effects of “previous associations”, never those of perhaps “current associations”?

    Would it be more appropriate to quit harping on supposed “gurus” if a teaching or position doesn’t fit with someone’s convictions, and instead stick to the matter and scriptural points raised? Usually, only those who find themselves convicted on a matter and who don’t want to change their position do then resort to attacks on the person … “attack on the messenger when one doesn’t like the message” ?

  81. on 27 Aug 2011 at 12:27 pmAdoniqam

    Xavier, see my reply to Anthony for your answer of whether Gentiles need to keep Torah — eventually all will. While I appreciate our discussion, I don’t wanna spend Shabbat on here. I think I’ve made enough points. All of the info you need to understand my position you will find in my previous posts. Lastly, Paul makes clear what he means in Eph 2:18-19, it’s no different than what he says in Gal 3 about there being no male or female in Christ — all are one family of God. The Jewish dogmas divided people (Acts 10:28; Gal 2:12-14) but are now broken down by Yeshua.

    Shabbat Shalom

  82. on 27 Aug 2011 at 12:34 pmXavier

    Adoniqam

    …Paul makes clear what he means in Eph 2:18-19, it’s no different than what he says in Gal 3 about there being no male or female in Christ — all are one family of God. The Jewish dogmas divided people (Acts 10:28; Gal 2:12-14) but are now broken down by Yeshua.

    Would appreciate a simple response here if you can. The posts have gotten so longwinded and simple questions lost in the muddle of verbiage.

    So we’re all “one in Messiah” but with different requirements?

    Lastly, are you saying that Gentiles must keep Torah except circumcision?

  83. on 27 Aug 2011 at 12:37 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    Thanks, Let me ask you: How much might the Pope’s teachings or the ONENESS view of God confuse others of different theological backgrounds?

    Any view which differs from another confuses the others!

    Please explain what you mean.

    Does your view on anything mean that opposing views are wrong?

    Or are all views right?

    There is a very great difference to be observed between Wierwille and Armstrong and a mass of other scholars who are quite unlike them!

    In what way are HWA and Wierwille not at all typical?
    Anthony

  84. on 27 Aug 2011 at 12:55 pmAdoniqam

    Q1: So we’re all “one in Messiah” but with different requirements?
    A: Yes. The covenant was made with Israel, not Gentiles. Therefore, the Torah is for Israel not the Gentiles, unless they choose to convert. However, all will convert in the Millenium.

    Q2:Lastly, are you saying that Gentiles must keep Torah except circumcision?
    A: No. Only if they convert or choose to take upon themselves Torah.But In Acts 15:20-21 all Gentiles are given the four Noahide laws from the Torah. These are the bare minimum that all must keep. Further it is inferred that they were to go to synagogues on Shabbat to learn Moses (v.21). At those synagogues, they can take on more and more if they choose to in order to eventually convert. If they choose not to, then they remain living by the basic four Torah laws of Acts 15. It’s real simple. Straight forward enough?

  85. on 27 Aug 2011 at 1:01 pmAdoniqam

    Correction: “only if they choose to convert or take upon themselves Torah they must be circumcised.”

  86. on 27 Aug 2011 at 1:07 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    Thanks, what I am getting at is the irresponsible guru, whose life style gave him away or if he claimed a degree he did not have!

    We are supposed to be discerning in these areas and life-style gives someone away!

    Repentance is realizing that we were fooled!

    We certainly were, and you too!
    Anthony

  87. on 27 Aug 2011 at 1:12 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Adoniqam

    According to Gen 17 physical circumcision is a requirement for both Jew and Gentile:

    Every male among you shall be circumcised…including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring…My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.

    Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

    It is not an option but a must!

  88. on 27 Aug 2011 at 1:20 pmAdoniqam

    Then get circumcised if you feel compelled too lol

    All of those in his house going to dwell in the Promised land were to be circumcised. If you wanna hop on board with the Jews I can get you a great Mohel that’ll trim you up real nice 😉

  89. on 27 Aug 2011 at 1:28 pmXavier

    Adoniqam

    So why are you making it a choice/option instead of a requirement?

    As a Torah-observant Christian you should be honest with yourself and especially others.

  90. on 27 Aug 2011 at 1:39 pmAdoniqam

    Xavier, are you calling me a liar?

    Better yet, are you claiming that I should indeed preach circumcision as a requirement for you all?

  91. on 27 Aug 2011 at 1:44 pmXavier

    Adoniqam

    Better yet, are you claiming that I should indeed preach circumcision as a requirement for you all?

    If you agreed with Anthony’s point regarding Gen 17, YES!

    To preach Torah without circumcision is like flying a plane without wings. 🙂

  92. on 27 Aug 2011 at 2:03 pmAdoniqam

    I see that you didn’t read my response, regarding whether a Gentile needs to keep Torah or not in which I clearly said that they do not including circumcision. I think what has actually occurred here, is that you all were banking on the idea that I would say Gentiles need to keep Torah of Moses including circumcision, so you all could challenge me on that front. But when I didn’t it obviated your readied arguments and you couldn’t really challenge me on anything. So now you’ve resorted to ad homs, calling me a liar which is funny because ask any Jewish Rabbi about what I’ve told you and he’ll confirm what I’ve said. Of course, he’d be liar too then.

    That’s okay though, I’ve more than spent the necessary to time on here. You’re a gentile with no knowledge of Judaism, Hebrew, midrash, or anything else in that genre, yet you are reading and arguing a Jewish book with someone who does have experience in all of those areas. And when you, someone who can’t even read Hebrew, fails to understand my position on the Torah you resort to calling me a liar. As I said in one of my earlier posts I am not here to convert anyone, but to confront the idiotic understanding that the Torah was abolished — which would apply to Jews and not Gentiles.

    Ad Homs are my cue to leave

  93. on 27 Aug 2011 at 2:08 pmWolfgang

    Anthony

    Any view which differs from another confuses the others!

    Please explain what you mean.

    well, your earlier comment seemed to indicate that only the other “gurus” views would be divisive and confusing … I am glad to read that you do seem to include your views as possibly being just as confusing and divisive to another as their views might be confusing or divisive to you …

  94. on 27 Aug 2011 at 2:16 pmWolfgang

    Anthony,

    We are supposed to be discerning in these areas and life-style gives someone away!
    Repentance is realizing that we were fooled!
    We certainly were, and you too!

    so you think that someone whose lifestyle is the measure for their teaching being true? In regards to supposedly biblical teaching I’ve been fooled by folks who were living quite “normally” and without the type of dishonesty which I encounted by some others who fooled me …
    There are quite well meaning teachers whose life style follows quite straight paths and if life style was the measure for truth, one would have to accept their teaching to be the truth of God …. but then, behold, (and just for example) they are teaching a belief in “the triune Godhead” as main pillar of true Christianity, or they hold certain “majority orthodox” teachings on some other topics and matters of Christian living which nevertheless are regarded by others to be unbiblical …. so now what?

  95. on 27 Aug 2011 at 2:18 pmXavier

    Adoniqam

    …I am not here to convert anyone, but to confront the idiotic understanding that the Torah was abolished — which would apply to Jews and not Gentiles.

    That makes no sense whatsoever. All you have done is rehash the same, age-old Sabbatarian arguments.

    The fact remains, Torah without the explicit requirement of circumcision in the flesh FOR ALL MALES is not the Torah of the Bible.

    So long.

  96. on 27 Aug 2011 at 3:40 pmMark C.

    As I said in one of my earlier posts I am not here to convert anyone, but to confront the idiotic understanding that the Torah was abolished

    How about dealing with my points, that the Torah was not abolished but fulfilled, and that the New Covenant is about the spirit and not the letter?

  97. on 27 Aug 2011 at 4:35 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Wolfgang

    All views confuse the opposite views!
    Your views also do!

    What we should aim at is good learning and a good peer review and avoid the “bizarre.” We should look to the established community of unitarians too.
    They battled hard from the Reformation and died for the truth. Total Innovation is to be viewed with some suspicion.
    If a group of unitarians is divided on a major issue, it is interesting to look at the former connections of those with the innovative views.

    If they have all had the same mentor, that could be a clue. It suggests that that mentor lives on long after he dies.

    I recommend belonging to some sort of “school,” peer review. The bizarre and eccentric is to be avoided.

    One cannot dismiss all Bible commentary in several languages over centuries: that is likely to be a sign of a solo misled guru!
    Anthony

    Armstrong did enormous damage to folk on these wrong principles.

    If the life style is unexceptionable, then the lifestyle is not the measure, but where you have wild sexual aberration, be careful! That is my point.

    People who are alcoholics are unreliable too. Those whose training allowed for little peer review can be dangerous. They are all too easily seen as apostles dropped from heaven by a public who knows little about the Bible. If a man should claim a degree which is not easily verifiable, you are in trouble.

    Above all if a man changes what practically all scholars have agreed is in the BIble, beware. There is a bizarre factor at work.
    Scores of good scholars know and have admitted that the Trinity is not in the Bible.

    I am glad to know of them.

    FF Bruce was clear in correspondence that Paul probably did not believe in a preexisting Son. But if I had said to Bruce that water baptism was not part of apostolic obedience and faith, he would not have dealt with me any longer! He would find me incredible.

    Anthony

  98. on 27 Aug 2011 at 5:08 pmJoseph

    Anthony,

    With respect you have lost the entire point in a flurry of words!

    My comments #29 and #62 may seem like a flurry of words to you as you do not agree with the results, but it is a well written overview of the context. I felt compelled to break it down mainly so that we can see that the ‘dogmas’ being spoken about are clearly not the Torah. Not once is the word Nomos used here. Let’s just get that out of the way first.

    It is still nonsense to say “let NOONE AT ALL judge you in the area of calendar BUT let the Church members judge you”. You have comitted yourself to the nonsense that Church members are NOT ANYONE!

    No it is not. It only is nonsense to you because you don’t like the interpretation “the body of Christ” as it goes against how you would like to understand the verse. Let me rephrase in another way….

    “Anthony, don’t let any man tell you how to eat, but Christian believers.”

    The “body of Messiah” (believers) is placed in antithesis to “any man” (non-believer). Here is an example of antithesis in scripture…

    “19 The circumcision is nobody, and the uncircumcision is nobody, but keeping of the commandments of God.”

    The meaning of this verse is clear: whether one is Jewish (circumcised) or Gentile (uncircumcised) is irrelevant, but keeping of the commandments of God what is relevant.

    By all means go into the world and teach everyone to observe the New Moons. If that is what you think you have to do. But I think you are failing entirely to understand the New Covenant.

    You said this in regards to Zech 12:10 and how it could not have been God incarnate who died on the cross…

    “The key is to start with the obvious and unarguable. God cannot die, so he was not crucified!”

    So you use sound logic here, but then when it comes to Yeshua’s defining command in Matthew 28:19-20 to his disciples to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:”, somehow that doesn’t apply? Don’t you see the contradiction in your logic? I think we can both agree that Yeshua is saying here that all the Nations (Gentiles) must be taught ALL that Yeshua taught his Jewish followers.

    Now let’s just assume that what Yeshua meant by “all things” is simply what is written in scripture in front of our eyes. Do you observe Shabbat and Passover? How about the Feast of Tabernacles? These are just a few things of the many commands that Yeshua taught his disciples.

    So, we see on one hand, you use the base for your understanding on how to interpret in light of the Trinity, and on the other hand you ignore the base when interpreting Paul’s letters. Like I was saying before, if you interpret Paul in light of who he was teaching (pagans), rather than what he practiced himself, you will miss the purpose of why Paul preached the way he did to the “Nations” that Yeshua said to go unto and teach. You have made your own Torah based upon what Paul had taught to those new in faith, rather than following the Messiah. They are babes in God’s word. Do you really want to build your own Torah based upon a babe in the faith?

    How do you get around this clear contradiction? Either you believe that Paul supersedes Yeshua’s commandment, or, Paul was teaching as a good proselyte would do by giving the “all nations” the milk that the babe needs to grow in the good meat (Torah). Now do you follow after Paul’s example, or do you follow after the pagans early in the faith? I’ll expand more on this and how it applies to Kingdom later in my comment.

    Your restranslation of the Greek does not convince me nor thousands of scholars over 2 000 years. You are avoiding the obvious sense. Coomands to go back under Moses are in the New Covenant nothing but the commandments of men! And no more!

    And as I have shown, the translation is sound. And just because the majority of popular scholars agree on a certain interpretation does not make it the truth. You should know this being in the eye of the Trinity debate. Our supposed “Scholars” for 2000 years have royally screwed up! There are many learned in the Greek today (I speak, read, and understand Hebrew) that will disagree with you. I have read their interpretations and they make more sense with the context of scripture. I had to do this very thing when I eventually denied the Trinity.

    And if Moses is nothing more than the commands of men in the New Covenant, then why would Jesus tell his disciples to teach us to obey “all that he commanded them (Torah)” in the New Covenant?… and why according to the prophets (Zech 14, ect.) we will be observing these commandments in the Kingdom? Again, you contradict the context.

    You must convice us that Paul is fully supporting the circumcision of ALL Gentiles as commanded by Torah in Gen 17. Try persuading us and all Bible readers of that fact. And I think you will rethink.

    Paul wasn’t against circumcision, he was against getting circumcised for the wrong reasons. We know this because he circumcised Timothy. If you believe that circumcision is going back under the law and falling from grace, then you must believe that Paul had condemned Timothy to death by his own hand. You honestly think that Paul would have done this to someone, the man who was a martyr to death, simply to please a few Jews? God forbid! He would have left the vicinity before condemning one of his students. We know that Timothy was well into his age and well versed in God’s Torah, therefore he would have felt he was ready to take on the covenant of circumcision. Remember, most of these new converts would have been full grown men. Getting circumcised is not a easy task to take upon oneself being a grown man, it is a permanent mark. One would have to be sure they want to follow God before taking upon such a covenant.

    Also, another possibility – Timothy’s father was a Greek. According to 1 CE Judaism it was popular belief that the Father determines whether you are of Jewish decent or not. If that was the case, then Timothy would have been a Gentile! So I do think that circumcision is eventually required of Gentiles who want to enter into the covenant, but, not for the wrong reasons which is what Paul talked about. Acts 15 shows us that there were certain Jews that were trying to say that salvation comes by becoming Jewish through circumcision. Then what was given to the Gentiles was a select set of commands that they could grow in God’s ways before making that leap into the covenant. I’ll expand more on this and Paul’s technique in proselytizing in another post.

    Salvation and grace comes by the process of coming to God, the intent, the progressive journey. But your reward in the Kingdom is based upon ones ability to obey and teach others God’s commandments…

    Matthew 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

    Which one are you?

  99. on 27 Aug 2011 at 5:35 pmMark C.

    The “body of Messiah” (believers) is placed in antithesis to “any man” (non-believer). Here is an example of antithesis in scripture…

    “19 The circumcision is nobody, and the uncircumcision is nobody, but keeping of the commandments of God.”

    The meaning of this verse is clear: whether one is Jewish (circumcised) or Gentile (uncircumcised) is irrelevant, but keeping of the commandments of God what is relevant.

    You may want to reread comments 66, 67, & 69 above.

    The Greek word translated “but” in Col. 2:17 is not the same word that is used for “except” and it is never used in the sense that you are talking about. In the verse you quote here, it is not saying “…nothing ‘but’ keeping the commandments.” It is not using the word “but” in the sense of “except.” It is saying circumcision or uncircumcision don’t matter, BUT in contrast to EITHER, it is keeping God’s commandments that matters.

    Neither is “but” being used in the sense of “except” in Col. 2:17, or anywhere else in Scripture. Interpreting it as “let no man judge you except the church” does not fit with the Greek or with the context. The point of the verse is contrasting the shadow with the body that casts the shadow. (See also comment 56.)

  100. on 27 Aug 2011 at 5:51 pmXavier

    Joseph

    Is circumcision of the flesh a choice/option or a requirement?

  101. on 27 Aug 2011 at 7:56 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Joseph

    There is a perfectly good way of saying “don’t let anyone tell you what to do EXCEPT the body of Christ.” Paul is contrasting the shadows which you cling to with the substance which is Jesus.

    You do not understand “the circumcision made without hands”.
    Paul wrote “don’t let anyone whoever it is…” not the KJV old “Let no man,” which is perhaps confusing you. KJV is often confusing.

    Here is Jesus, too in Mark 7:19:

    Thus he explained that all foods are clean.

    Deal with the 30 modern translations and show that they are wrong. Can you?

    You must deal expressly with the present masculine participle as you know.

    Paul said the same thing:

    I know that nothing is unclean of itself unless YOU think it is unclean… all things are clean. Rom 14.14

    He is talking about food and he is not enforcing Lev 11.

    If you insist on the New Moons and the sabbath as binding then automatically you HAVE to condemn all sabbath breakers and put them under the death penalty.

    Are you able to do this?

    I speak for a mass of NT specialists who will thoroughly disagree with your retranslation of Col. 2.

    Paul circumcised TIMOTHY, not because it was necessary but “because of the Jews”.

    You must on your logic refuse fellowship in the covenant with every believer who is not physically circumcised. Are you prepared to do this?

    Gen 17 tells us all that there are no exceptions. All must be circumcised!

    Paul said…

    IF I were still preaching circumcision, why am I being persecuted.

    And you say “HE WAS preaching physical circumcision for everyone, but for the right reasons.” Paul did not say anything about “for right reasons”.

    Does anyone else in this discussion feel that Paul advocated physical circumcision for all believers? i.e., that Gen 17 is in full force for us all?
    Anthony.

  102. on 28 Aug 2011 at 7:30 amAnthony Buzzard

    Mark C.

    Great point about how Paul would have said, if he meant it:

    Let no one judge you…. except the body of Christ.

    Paul did not say that. He said, “let no one at all, whoever they are, judge you”.

    It is nonsense to say, “but let the persons in the church judge you”!

    Thanks for the good point.
    Anthony

  103. on 28 Aug 2011 at 9:02 amXavier

    In Ezek 44 YHWH says…

    …you brought foreigners uncircumcised in heart and flesh into my sanctuary, desecrating my temple while you offered me food, fat and blood, and you broke my covenant.

    No foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh is to enter my sanctuary, not even the foreigners who live among the Israelites.

    So how can circumcision of the flesh not be a requirement for those who preach Torah to Christians?!

  104. on 29 Aug 2011 at 12:34 amJoseph

    Mark C.

    You may want to reread comments 66, 67, & 69 above.

    The Greek word translated “but” in Col. 2:17 is not the same word that is used for “except” and it is never used in the sense that you are talking about. In the verse you quote here, it is not saying “…nothing ‘but’ keeping the commandments.” It is not using the word “but” in the sense of “except.” It is saying circumcision or uncircumcision don’t matter, BUT in contrast to EITHER, it is keeping God’s commandments that matters.

    Exactly! Being Jewish or Gentile doesn’t matter, it’s keeping God’s commandments that matter! What are those commandments? The Torah of course! Salvation does not come through being circumcised. And trying to be justified and saved through circumcision puts one under the entire law and falls short of Messiah. Perfectly in line with what Paul taught, but doesn’t do away with God’s Torah, the same Torah that Paul himself followed!

    Neither is “but” being used in the sense of “except” in Col. 2:17, or anywhere else in Scripture. Interpreting it as “let no man judge you except the church” does not fit with the Greek or with the context. The point of the verse is contrasting the shadow with the body that casts the shadow. (See also comment 56.)

    I disagree, I’ve laid out the context just fine. You and others had the idea that the Torah is being pinned to the cross in Col 2, but the context and use of the word ‘dogma’ clearly shows that is not the case. Paul is simply explaining to the believers in Colosse to not fall back under the lawless ways (dogmas) they had been following before they believed in Messiah. He then goes onto say that don’t let anyone judge you in God’s commandments, WHICH ARE (not were) a shadow of things to come.

    Paul is telling them, don’t let any man (unbelievers) judge them in how they have chosen to follow in God’s ways, except for their fellow believers. As I pointed out in my previous response, it is ok for believers to judge each other on matters of falling away from God’s commands. In fact, we should always try and bring a believer back to the grid if they have fallen off.

    Anthony,

    “No. If “noone” is to do something, that includes those persons who form the body of Christ, just common sense.

    (Note: the KJV is misleading with “let no man”, Greek says, “do not let anyone [i.e. whoever it is]“.)”

    Wrong. The context makes perfect sense however you want to translate it. Just because you don’t agree with the translation does not mean it does not make sense.

    “Anthony, don’t let anyone tell you how to eat except/but your fellow believers.”

    Makes perfect sense. You are assuming that “any man” means everyone on the entire earth. But that is your assumption. In the case of the context of Col 2, Paul is writing to tell them concerning matters of what to follow and what not to follow by influences within their community.

    From vs16… “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:…”
    No μή –
    1) no, not lest
    Man τις –
    1) a certain, a certain one
    2) some, some time, a while

    From vs18… “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,…”
    No man μηδείς –
    1) nobody, no one, nothing

  105. on 29 Aug 2011 at 5:29 amJoseph

    Xavier,

    Joseph

    Is circumcision of the flesh a choice/option or a requirement?

    Everything is a choice. Paul circumcised Timothy who was the son of a gentile. The Israelites in the wilderness for 40 years were not circumcised until they entered the promise land, but they were still considered God’s chosen while in the wilderness. Nor did they keep passover for 40 years because it is a requirement to be circumcised to keep passover (Ex 12:39-49). Yeshua said he will be keeping passover once again with us in the Kingdom. So in that sense, yes, it is a requirement. God gave the covenant of circumcision to Abraham after he had walked with him for many years in righteousness.

    The main point here that you seem to be missing is that Paul was against believers getting circumcised to make themselves righteous, thus gaining salvation. Salvation comes by belief in the son and the grace of God. But that does not mean that one throws out God’s commandments. I already pointed to Yeshua saying that those who do not follow the Torah and teach others to do so will be called least in the Kingdom. But Paul knew as a master of proslytizing that you don’t start a babe on meat. First you give a babe milk, and then they will progress into the strong meat (Torah). That is why James declared it was ok to give the new converts just a few Torah laws to start out on, knowing that Moses would be preached in the synagogues on the Sabbath (Acts 15:21). He knew that new converts (gentiles) would grow in the faith, learning with Jews on the Sabbath. Which we also see in other places that Gentiles were with Jews learning in the synagogues.

    Even Chabadnics today do not tell converts that they must first be circumcised. First they start them out on the noahide laws and slowly into Torah until they eventually take it upon themselves a circumcision, which is followed by a tevilah (immersion).

  106. on 29 Aug 2011 at 5:38 amJoseph

    Anthony,

    Joseph

    There is a perfectly good way of saying “don’t let anyone tell you what to do EXCEPT the body of Christ.” Paul is contrasting the shadows which you cling to with the substance which is Jesus. Paul wrote “don’t let anyone whoever it is…” not the KJV old “Let no man,” which is perhaps confusing you. KJV is often confusing.

    See my response #104.

    You do not understand “the circumcision made without hands”.

    11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Messiah

    In Yeshua, we are circumcised in the heart by His blood covering our sins thereby separating us from our sins.

    12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of Yahweh, who hath raised him from the dead.

    We buried the old man and we are now a new creation so we shouldn’t be going back to any old traditions and philosophies.

    13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
    14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his tree (cross);

    When we are forgiven of our sins, those old traditions, doctrines and ordinances of men which are AGAINST us are taken out of the way. They have no power over us any longer if we are in Yeshua. Do these ordinances have power over men who are without Yeshua? Yes they do! They enslave men to sin!

    The circumcision without hands (of the heart) is also prevalent in the Tanach. This is not new specifically to the NT. Perhaps you are the one who does not understand the circumcision without hands?

    Here is Jesus, too in Mark 7:19:

    Thus he explained that all foods are clean.

    Deal with the 30 modern translations and show that they are wrong. Can you?

    You must deal expressly with the present masculine participle as you know.

    Paul said the same thing:

    I know that nothing is unclean of itself unless YOU think it is unclean… all things are clean. Rom 14.14

    You are not interpreting the context correctly. This has already been explained by Adoniqam in comment #68.

    If you insist on the New Moons and the sabbath as binding then automatically you HAVE to condemn all sabbath breakers and put them under the death penalty.

    Are you able to do this?

    No I don’t. No Sanhidren, and not in the land of Israel.

    I speak for a mass of NT specialists who will thoroughly disagree with your retranslation of Col. 2.

    So what is your point? That majority determines truth? I’ve heard you argue against this notion in your own defense against Trinitarians. There is also a mass of NT “specialists” that disagree with the re-translation of Titus 2:13 in regards to the Unitarian view. Remember that foundation we should interpret in light of?

    And as Adoniqam has also pointed out…

    From Friberg’s Lexicon:
    28580 χειρόγραφον, ου, τό strictly handwritten document; in legal matters a promissory note, record of indebtedness, bond; figuratively in CO 2.14 not as the law itself, but as the record of charges (for breaking God’s law), which stood against us and which God symbolically removed by “nailing it to the cross,” handwritten account, record of debts.

    Paul circumcised TIMOTHY, not because it was necessary but “because of the Jews”.

    So within your own understanding, Paul was doing the very thing to Timothy that most people think Paul was telling the Galatians not to do!

    “Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, the Messiah will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Messiah, you who [attempt] [to] be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.”

    Was he circumcising Timothy so that “Messiah could profit him nothing” and so that he would become “estranged from Messiah” and “fall from grace?”

    You must on your logic refuse fellowship in the covenant with every believer who is not physically circumcised. Are you prepared to do this?

    Gen 17 tells us all that there are no exceptions. All must be circumcised!

    The truth is that if we are in the Messiah Yeshua, whether we are circumcised or uncircumcised doesn’t gain us salvation. To the contrary, if we use it (or any other commanded act) as attempt to replace the work of Messiah, we are putting ourselves under the law and separating ourselves from Yeshua.

    We are sons of Abraham through Yeshua the Messiah, not circumcision. In this sense it avails us nothing. But circumcision for the right reasons does fulfill a purpose. Otherwise Timothy endured a very painful ordeal for nothing. He wasn’t getting circumcised because he wanted to witness to the Jews. Timothy was going to be circumcised anyway. Paul was choosing to be the one who actually did the act of circumcising Timothy ‘because of the Jews’. He was proving to them that he was not against circumcision if done for the right reasons. What are the right reasons? No, it is not so that you can impress the Jews! He was clearly against that!

    In the Torah, circumcision was never the first item on Yahweh’s list of things He desired. Yahweh didn’t give Abraham the covenant of circumcision on the day that he called him. He gave the covenant of circumcision to Abraham after Abraham had walked with Him many years.

    This was also how Yahweh dealt with this issue with the children of Israel. The children of Israel were in the wilderness for 40 years and were not circumcising their children but Yahweh said nothing about it until just before they entered the promised land.

    Paul said…

    IF I were still preaching circumcision, why am I being persecuted.

    Galatians 5:7-10 I have confidence in you through the Master, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. 11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 10 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

    So Paul’s confidence was that they would judge the who were troubling them by cutting them off from fellowship. They needed to be judged because they were perverting the true good news of Yeshua and turning people toward their own ‘good news of the saved by circumcision,’ a doctrine that was never true at any time in history. New believers in Yeshua have the grace and liberty to learn and apply Yahweh’s commandments as His Spirit leads, without having a spiritual gun pointed to their head if they don’t immediately whip into shape. But Paul does warn the Galatians that liberty is not to be used as an excuse to walk in sin:

    Galatians 5:13-26 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

    Let’s us logic on the fundamental declaration of our Messiah in relation to how we should interpret what commands we should grow and learn in…

    19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations (gentiles), baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
    20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

    If the Jews were taught by Yeshua to be circumcised, so then should “all nations” be taught the same. In the proper manner of course, which Paul expands upon many of times. Remember the context in it’s entirety.

  107. on 29 Aug 2011 at 5:48 amJoseph

    Question…

    Is it ok to drink cow’s, pig’s, ect., blood?

  108. on 29 Aug 2011 at 6:30 amMark C.

    Exactly! Being Jewish or Gentile doesn’t matter, it’s keeping God’s commandments that matter! What are those commandments? The Torah of course! Salvation does not come through being circumcised. And trying to be justified and saved through circumcision puts one under the entire law and falls short of Messiah. Perfectly in line with what Paul taught, but doesn’t do away with God’s Torah, the same Torah that Paul himself followed!

    But my point is that that passage of Scripture is not using “but” in the sense of “except” as you suggested.

    I disagree, I’ve laid out the context just fine. You and others had the idea that the Torah is being pinned to the cross in Col 2, but the context and use of the word ‘dogma’ clearly shows that is not the case.

    I didn’t say the Torah was nailed to the cross. The “handwriting of ordinances” or “written bill of debt” is what was nailed to the cross, paying the price for our sins, and thus freeing us from the condemnation that the Law requires of us.

    He then goes onto say that don’t let anyone judge you in God’s commandments, WHICH ARE (not were) a shadow of things to come.

    He wouldn’t say that those things “were” a shadow, because they didn’t cease to be a shadow. The elements of the Law such as eating and drinking, holy days, new moons and sabbaths are shadows of something greater. The body that casts that shadow is Christ. The shadow has not disappeared, but we now have access to the actual thing rather than just the shadow.

    Paul is telling them, don’t let any man (unbelievers) judge them in how they have chosen to follow in God’s ways, except for their fellow believers.

    But the Greek word that is used is NOT the word for “except.” There is a perfectly good word for “except” that is used elsewhere, but it is not used here. And the English word “but” is not used in the sense of “except” anywhere in the NT.

  

Leave a Reply