Torah Was for ISRAEL!
The Armstrong Churches of God, like the Christian Pharisees of the First Century, have always taught that Gentile Christians are obligated to obey some of the precepts of Torah. A few days ago, on Banned by HWA, Scout wrote a post entitled Notes on the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. In it, he made clear that the WHOLE Church (including the Jewish part of it) decided that believers would NOT be required to adhere to the tenets of the Old Covenant - Torah. Scout went on to make the point that this did NOT mean that the Church was discarding Torah, just that it wasn't a pathway to salvation under the New Covenant. Armstrongists, however, insist that Christians can lose their salvation by failing to observe some of the laws of Torah (like those related to Sabbaths and Holy Days).
In my previous post on this topic (Was Torah for Everyone?), I said that "what is offered here is only a FRACTION of the many passages contained in Torah which make very clear that Torah was intended for the people of Israel." In making that statement, I was on very solid ground. To demonstrate the truth of that statement, and because it is so important for Christians to understand that we are operating under a different iteration of God's Law, I have decided to include a few more of the Scriptures which make very clear that Torah was intended for the people of Israel.
In the book of Leviticus, we read that God told the Israelites that he had separated them from the other peoples of the earth (Leviticus 20:24, 26). In the original Hebrew, the sense is that they were severed from other nations and people. They were to be clearly different from other peoples, and it wasn't just male circumcision which delineated that difference. The Sabbath was also a sign between them and God which distinguished them from all other people (Exodus 31:13, 17). Moreover, there were a number of other things that were to distinguish them from the Gentile nations surrounding them. For instance, in the book of Deuteronomy, we read: "You are the sons of the Lord your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. You shall not eat any abomination. These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, the deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep. Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat." (Deuteronomy 14:1-6, ESV) There were even regulations about how they were to cut their hair, and what kinds of fabrics they were to wear! All of these things distinguished them from the Gentile nations.
Over and over again, the commandments of Torah were addressed to the children of Israel and reiterated throughout that these instructions were intended to distinguish them from the nations which surrounded them. Near the end of the book of Leviticus, we read: "These are the statutes and rules and laws that the Lord made between himself and the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai." (Leviticus 26:46, ESV) Indeed, later, in the book of Deuteronomy, we read: "When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this." (Deuteronomy 18:9-14, ESV) Clearly, God intended through Torah for the Israelites to be different from the Gentile peoples which they were displacing (and would be surrounded by) in every aspect of their lives!
Hence, once again, the Armstrongist narrative about Torah does NOT fit. We see that God clearly intended this iteration of his law for the people of Israel. Indeed, we have seen that the commandments of Torah were meant to distinguish them from the other peoples of the world. Armstrongists love to point out that Christ and his disciples kept Torah, but they completely ignore the fact that they were ALL Jews! Paul was also a devout Jew. Moreover, it was necessary that Christ observe the commandments of Torah to fulfill the Law and make his sacrifice of himself efficacious for securing our salvation! The PLAIN TRUTH is that Torah was never intended for Gentiles, or the Church which Christ founded. Christ fulfilled Torah for Israel and instituted a new iteration of God's Law for Christians (based on the same principles that were the basis for Torah - love for God and each other). Thus, for those who have accepted Christ's sacrifice and received God's Holy Spirit, their lives will reflect obedience to Christ's iteration of God's Law.
21 comments:
In the book of Deuteronomy, two rhetorical questions are asked: "For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?" (Deuteronomy 4:7-8, ESV) The answers to both questions, of course, were that NO OTHER NATION had those things!
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix
Thank you for this post. I quite agree.
The Torah indeed made Israel distinct from those around her. And keeping the Torah down through the ages insured she would remain separate from the nations and their practices.
And of course we have Acts 15, and there is no need to bind these requirements restrictions on the gentiles who are coming to Christ, to salvation.
The Bible is the most remarkable book ever written, a source of enormous good, and sadly otherwise as history attests.
I see many who call themselves Messianic Jews, and others, well meaning folks I might add, who in their search for longing bind themselves with tallits, kippahs etc etc when they simply are not required. We are saved by grace, by Christ alone. And one day Israel will be saved.
We are all Abrahams offspring if we are of the faith he had, while as yet uncircumcised, Jew and gentile as one.
That said I do observe Shabbat and the festivals and believe there is indeed merit in doing so.
But It is Christ who saves.
What liberty we have.
But avoid ....... strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain - Titus 3:9. Yup. They are not going to observe the weekly sabbath and the three festivals. Don't tell them Paul did mention and quote from the law of Moses and said that law was holy, just, and good in writing to....Gentiles.
Bye.
True Israel
As this is 4 parts, one might want to stop reading at this point :).
Miller, your post seems to me that you are diminishing the role of “Israel” in the plan of salvation.
Something to consider:
Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
"The redeemed of the future will experience the eschatological salvation not because they are Israelites but because they are faithful, holy, righteous. Back of this expectation lies the deeper concept, seldom explicit in the Old Testament but constantly implicit, the true Israel is of the spirit rather than of the flesh. In fact, the entire Old Testament illustrated the Pauline statement that "not all who are descended from Israel belongs to Israel" (Rom 9:6). Only the remnant of Noah and his family were saved from the flood. Isaac and his seed alone inherited the promises given to Abraham. Joshua and Caleb alone of all Israel entered into the promised land. Elijah was told of seven thousand faithful who had not bowed to Baal. Jeremiah distinguishes between those who are circumcised only in the flesh and those who are circumcised in heart (Jer 4:4; see Deut 10:15-16). Here plainly is the concept of an Israel within Israel, of a spiritual Israel within national Israel. As the faithful people with the faithless nation, the remnant does not constitute a separate people. It does, however, as John Bright has pointed out, constitute a "church" within the nation... A distinction begins to be made between the physical Israel and the true Israel, between the actual Israel and the ideal Israel. The distinction rests not upon nationality or cult or race, but upon faith. It is fundamentally a spiritual relationship" (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., pp.73-74).
“The disciples constituted not a new Israel but the true Israel, not a new church but the true people of God (Jer 7:23; 31:33; Ezek 11:20); the righteous nation that keeps faith (Isa 26:2); the true qahal Jahweh who have been summoned by Jesus into the blessings of the messianic fulfillment” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.255).
“Jesus’ call of twelve disciples to share his mission had been widely recognized as a symbolic act setting forth the continuity between his disciples and Israel. That the twelve represent Israel is shown by their eschatological role. They are to sit on twelve thrones, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30)...” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.251).
Lk 10:1 Now after these things, the Lord also appointed seventy others, and sent them two by two ahead of him into every city and place where he was about to come. (WEB).
“Recognition that the twelve were meant to constitute the nucleus of the true Israel does not exclude the view that the number 12 also involved a claim upon the entire people as Jesus’ qahal... The twelve as a symbolic number looks both backward and forward: backward to old Israel and forward to the eschatological Israel” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., pp.251-52).
Isa 8:14 And He hath been for a sanctuary, And for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of falling, To THE TWO HOUSES OF ISRAEL... (YLT).
“The New Testament ... does not present us with a new religion which we may study for itself alone... we must not forget that Jesus and his early disciples were all Jews. And it is clear that Jesus did not intended to found a new religion. His mission was precisely to “the lost sheep of the [southern] house of Israel” (Matt 10:6; 15:24). He did not come to destroy Israel’s faith and supercede it with another, but rather to bring it to its fulfillment (Matt 5:17).
Part 2
“Nor did his disciples intend to found a new religion... Indeed it is the insistence of the New Testament writers that it is they who have the true Judaism and the true fulfillment of Israel’s hope... the New Testament remains a book fundamentally Jewish in character, organically related to the Old Testament faith. So much so, in fact, that the theology of the New Testament cannot be understood in isolation, but only in the light of all hope of Israel” (John Bright, The Kingdom of God, p.196).
Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
“But here is One who, we have argued, consciously adopted the pattern of the Servant and fulfilled it, who summoned men into the humble and lowly company of the Servant and gave them the Servant mission of proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom in the world; who even selected disciples to the number of twelve, as if symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Matt 19:28). It is as if Jesus wished to say in a living parable that in his person, his work, and calling to men, he was laying the foundation of a new Israel and giving it its true destiny... Here in Jesus and the community of his followers is the true Israel...” (John Bright, The Kingdom of God, p.226).
“Now the New Testament view of the Church is rather plain, incredibly strange as this sounds to our ears. The Church is the “twelve tribes in the dispersion” (Jas 1:1); she is the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). a remnant elected by grace (Rom 11:5), a kingdom of priests (Rev 5:10), “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation... God’s people” (1Pet 2:9-10), and much more to the effect. In short, she is God’s holy community, the true Remnant, the people of the New Covenant... As the true Israel the Church is to carry on Israel’s mission and, like Israel, to be the chosen and the holy people” (John Bright, The Kingdom of God, pp.253-54).
“Our contention is not that the New covenant only fulfilled the spiritual promises made to Abraham’s seed. True, the middle wall of partition had been broken down between believing Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:13-18); but this again did not imply or explicitly teach that national identities or promises were likewise obviated any more than maleness and femaleness were dropped. Paul’s claim is that Gentile believers have been “grafted into” the Jewish olive tree (Rom 11:17-25) and made “fellowheirs of the same body and partakers of the his promise in Christ by the gospel’ (Eph 3:6). Since “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), and since there is only one fold, one shepherd, and yet “other ... sheep ... which [were] not of the this fold (John 10:16), it should not be too surprising to see the NT writers add to the emerging thesis of the OT that there is just one people of God and one program of God even though there are several aspects to that swingle people and single program.
“Paul made the Gentiles believers part of the “household of God” (Eph 2:19) and part of “Abraham’s seed” (Gal 3:16-19). Furthermore, he called them “heirs” according to the promise (Gal 3;19), which “inheritance” was part of “the hope of their calling” (Eph 1:18) and part of the “eternal inheritance” given to Abraham (Heb 9:15). Thus Gentiles, who were “aliens from the state of Israel” (Eph 2:12) and “strangers and foreigners” (v.19) to “the covenants of promise” (v.12), have been made to share in part of the blessings of God to Israel...” (Walter C. Kaiser. Jr., Towards and Old Testament Theology, pp.268).
Part 3
Ro 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Ro 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
For me, it would follow that a person who is a Jew inwardly would be keeping the Sabbath, Passover and Tabernacles as opposed to Sunday, Easter and Christmas.
David united the twelve tribes into a unified kingdom. But it was Solomon who built the Temple.
Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; [Peter is the nearest antecedent of “rock”].
David’s greater son gathered together twelve disciples and formed the nucleus of the Israel of God. But it was on Peter and others that he built his church/temple.
After the death of Solomon the kingdom split in two houses of Israel - north and a south - with the north being more populous.
Ac 12:4 And when he had apprehended him [Peter], he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Passover to bring him forth to the people.
Ac 1:10a And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went [poreuomenou] up...
Ac 12:17b And he [Peter] departed, and went [eporeuthe] into another place.
It is suggest after Peter’s exit from the scene, except for the cameo in Acts 15, and after Paul the Israel of God split into two camps - Sabbath and Sunday keepers.
When the northern kingdom kept the feast in the eighth months and set up calves in Bethel and Dan they did not thereby stop being the people of God so also the Sunday-keeper did not thereby stop being the people of God.
While I have some of the best commentaries on Acts, including the four volume, 4459 page work by Craig A. Keener, my favourite is by Robert Wall, some highlights:
"In the Pauline letters, Paul is opposed by "Judaizers" — Jewish Christians who stipulated that all Gentile converts must be catechized and circumcised according to the traditions of the Judaizers' ancestral religion... When Luke wrote Acts, however, the principle internal threat to the church's faith were "Gentilizers" who threatened to erase anything Jewish from the church's core identity" (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, pp.10-11).
“The spiritual crisis as Luke sees it is the possible loss of a distinctly Jewish memory without which the church cannot be the church...” (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.214).
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
"Even though the recipients of Paul's letters (e.g., 1-2 Corinthians) are primarily Gentile, their future with God is predicated on their congregation's Jewish roots - the very point that Acts illuminates by its narrative emphasis. The connection between Acts and the Pauline letters suggests, that "to the Jew first, then the Greek" is an ecclesial calculus every bit as much at it is a prophetic protocol" (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.215).
"Luke does not perceive paganism as the church's principal threat; rather, the church's outreach is substantially weakened by the loss of its connection with the core beliefs and practices of repentant Israel" (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.9).
"The problem that remains is whether the church will become so thoroughly "Gentilized" that the church's Jewish legacy will be truncated or abandoned, which would be a tacit denial of God's faithfulness to historical Israel. This version of the problem of theodicy shapes the plotline of the second half of Acts (see 15:13-29)" (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.60).
Part 4
Ac 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. see Isaiah 49:5 above.
"The door is opened to repentant Gentiles not because of unrepented Israel, but because of a repentant, restored Israel, which is now able to lay hold of its prophesied vocation, embodied in Paul and Barnabas, to be "a light for the Gentiles" (13:47)... The reader's mind is concentrated upon what God has done in partnership with these prophets-like-Jesus to save repentant Gentiles" (Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles, NIB, Vol.10, p.205).
"The primary theological subtext of this first half of Acts is whether God is faithful to the biblical promise of a restored Israel (1:6; 3:19-20). The short answer is yes. According to Acts 2:22-15:12, the Spirit's repeated outpouring testifies to God's continuing faithfulness to Israel, not so much by its transforming presence as by its empowering agency that enables a people's compelling witness to the risen Messiah. The church's Spirit-filled mission goes first to the entire house of Israel to call out a community of repentant Jews for a "season of refreshment" (Acts 2-9). The same Spirit then empowers this community to fulfill God's call as "a light to the nations," beginning with Peter (Acts 10-12) and more fully personified in Paul (Acts 13-14). God's salvation of the Jew first and then the Gentiles through common prophetic witness with shared blessings envisages the stunning impartiality of God's faithfulness (10:34-38)" (ibid., p.210).
“We should note that Luke’s response in Acts is different from Paul’s in Romans; Paul wrote a generation earlier when the internal threat was not so keenly felt. While both contend that only a remnant within Israel ever repented of sin and turned to God in faith (Rom 9:6-29), Paul is clearly dissatisfied with a divided Israel as a permanent solution. He, therefore, posits the full restoration of historic Israel at the return of Jesus following the Gentile mission (see Rom 11:25-36). Acts does not register such a sharp a dichotomy between the Jewish rejection of the gospel and the Gentiles embrace of it as found in Romans (see Rom 11:11-24). Rather, Luke is resigned to a divided Israel as a permanent feature of God’s plan of salvation (see 3:19-23) The promise of a faithful God to restore Israel has already been realized in the church’s mission to the entire household of Israel (Acts 2-8). For Luke, unlike for Paul, the return of Christ inaugurates a season of “universal restoration” (3:21); and for him, unlike for Paul, the promise of Israel’s “refreshment” has already been fulfilled among repentant Jews (see 3:19-20). In the meantime, the pattern of God’s faithfulness to Israel agrees with (rather than reverses) biblical prophecy: Israel is restored first and only when repentant Gentiles are “grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom 11:17).
“The same difference is also reflected by the principal opponents of Paul’s Gentile mission within the church. In the Pauline letters, Paul is opposed by “Judaizers” — Jewish Christians who stipulated that all Gentile converts must be catechized and circumcised according to the traditions of the Judaizers’ ancestral religion. As a working symbol of his opposition to this “Judaizing” movement within the church, he refused to circumcise Titus, a Greek convert (see Acts 15:1-2; cf. Gal. 2:1-10). When Luke wrote Acts, however, the principle internal threat to the church’s faith were “Gentilizers” who threatened to erase anything Jewish from the church’s core identity. To mark this different context, Luke tells the story of Paul’s circumcision of Timothy, who symbolizes the mission’s resistance to the gentilizing of the church’s legacy (see 16:1-5; cf. 15:19-21, 28-29; 21:25...” (ibid., p.11).
"...can lose their salvation by failing to observe some of the laws of Torah (like those related to Sabbaths and Holy Days)."
oh wow...you can also lose it all too, if you fail to observe your local ego-maniacal "mantle" self-professing titleist-holder
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix,
"Thus, for those who have accepted Christ's sacrifice and received God's Holy Spirit, their lives will reflect obedience to Christ's iteration of God's Law."
This is what Armstrongists are doing.
ALCON:
Ladd is a Baptist minister. I doubt he’d appreciate using his words to support Armstrongism.
John Bright was a Presbyterian. Again, pulling an authors words into a debate to support conclusions they’d not support.
Miller,
Good exposition.
Something that binds the law to Israel is, first, the tabernacle in the wilderness and then, later, the Temple. These were a central part of the theology, practice and liturgy of ancient Israel. But the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD which should have marked the demise of the Law of Moses as Israel knew it. The Law of Christ should have then been Israel's new legislation. But that did not happen because Jesus was rejected.
An eminent Pharisee, Yohanan ben Zakkai, escaped the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD by pretending to be dead. He was carried outside the walls of Jerusalem for burial in a coffin. He negotiated with Vespasian to leave the area and established the Academy of Jamnia on the Mediterranean Coast west of Jerusalem. The Academy consisted of Pharisees and teachers. They re-packaged Judaism to function without a Temple.
It is this re-packaged Judaism, what we would now call Rabbinic Judaism, that Armstrongism seems to imitate to a degree. Armstrongism also does not implement the Temple worship of Late Second Temple Judaism. But Armstrongists do not seem to realize that they are following an anomolous Judaism that was forced into existence by the Destruction of the Temple. And when Jesus spoke of fulfilling the Law and the Prophets in Matthew 5, which Armstrongists often quote, Jesus was talking about the Pre-70 AD religious worship of Judah that included Temple worship not the re-packaged form from Post-70 AD. I
It is glib for Armstrongists to say that Temple worship is no longer needed because there are no sacrifices any longer. While sacrifices have been dropped, there are still other points of liturgy. I am not a scholar in Late Second Temple Judaism but I believe that if Armstrongists wish to continue following the Law of Moses, they should at least look at the issue of the Temple to define its relevance for today. Is it really possible for the Levitical Priesthood to be replaced and yet continue the Law of Moses as written? And if it is impossible to continue the Law of Moses as written in scripture, they should ask themselves why. And a historical hint is that Yohanan ben Zakkai and the Jewish Elders of the Bet Din had to re-package Judaism to make it viable without a Temple
Scout
The lenghty commentary is seeking to justify Armstrongism and somehow parallel certain works as if they permit the same - as I see others have also commented. .
Paul taught the same message to all believers, Jew and Gentile, he taught the same Gospel to all.
Armstrong taught salvation is achieved by ''keeping'' the law. He wrote ''DO'' in capitals.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Ten Commandments (the Mosaic Covenant) were given to the people of Israel and no one else;
The New Testament shows the Law covenant given at Sinai existed only until Christ. It was an interim measure (Matt 11:3; Lk 16:16; Jn 1:17; Romans 5:13, 20; Gal 3:17; 3:25-4:5; Eph 2:15; 2 Cor 3:9-11).
The Book of Hebrews reminds us that the new covenant in principle makes the old covenant obsolete - one that according to the writer was already passing away (Hebrews 8:13 And “By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.”
Hebrews shows clearly that the old covenant was inferior and had been superseded by ‘better’ realities in Christ (Hebrews 7:19, 26; 8:6; 9:23; 11:6); that the
Sinai religion (Judaism) has become the ‘camp’ hostile to Christ (Hebrews 13:12-14).
Jesus had been put outside the camp (by being rejected and crucified outside Jerusalem) and Jewish believers are encouraged to leave Judaism (the temple, synagogue and distinctively Jewish Sinai religion) and identify with Christ, rejected by the nation.
The Law was given to Israel at Sinai as noted. The promise of the law was, ‘this do and you shall live’ (Deut 27:26; Gals 3: 11, 12; Romans 10:5, 6). However, in reality (as God, the Law-giver knew only to well) no-one could keep it.
‘The flesh’, the principle of rebellion and sin that lies in the human heart means that no-one could keep God’s law. In fact the law was given to show that even a privileged people like Israel (chosen by God, given the promises etc Cf. Romans 9:4, 5). Fallen man, at his best and most favoured, is a hopeless failure before God.
continued :
However, in reality (as God, the Law-giver knew only to well) no-one could keep it. ‘The flesh’, the principle of rebellion and sin that lies in the human heart means that no-one could keep God’s law.
It was not long before a patient and longsuffering God was obliged to bring the covenant curses upon his people; the final curse being exile from the land (Deut 29:27, 28);
What the Law primarily did, as the new covenant makes clear, is to reveal sin (Romans 3:20). The paradox is that God’s Law, holy just and good (Romans 7:12) identifies sin (Romans 3:20; 7:7) and incites sin (Romans 5:20). Rebellious human nature when confronted by a command from God instinctively wants to disobey (Romans 7:5). The result is condemnation, wrath and death (Romans 5:12-20).
In a word the Law produces sin, wrath and death. In fact, the Law has done all it can when it leads to an individual seeing they are condemned and crying out in despair, ‘O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from this body of death’ (Romans 7:24).
A godly Old Testament Jew, living under law, while in his mind rejoiced in God’s law, found in reality he could not keep it, indeed it seemed to make him sin all the more (Romans 7). This of course was Paul;
His only hope lay outside the law in the promises God had made to Abraham and the fathers; in a word, in the gospel, preached to Abraham and promised beforehand through the prophets (Gal 3:8; Romans 1:3; Hebrews 4:2)
In this sense the Law prepared the way for Christ. Its oppressive influence made godly Jews long for the liberty of sonship, of the gospel (Gal 3:23-4-7). Indeed within the Law itself the eye of faith could see the basic principles of the gospel to come
For the Law like all the Scriptures spoke of Christ (the righteousness of Christ is seen in its moral standards and the work of Christ in its sacrificial system). All the imperfect events (e.g. the Exodus), imperfect places (Canaan); imperfect people (Isaac the promised son, Moses the prophet, Aaron the High Priest; David the king); imperfect covenants (Sinai) simply alerted the faithful to the fact that these were but shadows of a ‘perfect’ that was yet to come; that perfect was Christ (Hebrews 7:19).
He came not to abolish the law (disregard and dismiss it) but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17; Lk 16:17); Christ, as Paul states, is the end of the law (goal and terminus) of the law to all who believe (Romans 10:4).
Luke said to be author of Acts stood by Paul until the end.
Anonymous in four parts,
I appreciate the effort that you always put into your commentary. Unlike many of the folks who agree with you, you have obviously done a great deal of independent research and given a great deal of thought to the conclusions which you have reached. Moreover, I find that there is much in your presentation that I can agree with and that does not contradict my own view. Like you, I believe that God's people include both hereditary Israelites and Gentiles "grafted into" the tree. Like you, I believe that many Christians have lost sight of the Hebrew roots of their religion and have deprived themselves of a deeper appreciation and understanding of their faith by doing so. Indeed, we all sometimes forget that the Hebrew Bible (what we now refer to as the Old Testament) was the ONLY Bible available to the First Century Church.
As you know, my own view is that everything in Torah (moral, ceremonial/sacrificial, clean and unclean, cultural, and civil) points to Jesus of Nazareth. Although, I believe that he also fulfilled ALL of it (the Prophets and the Writings included). We see Jesus in all of the elements which are no longer required of God's people - circumcision, Sabbath and Holy Day observance, the sacrifices, the priesthood, etc.). I also believe that Christ fulfilled God's promise to magnify his Law and make it a part of the very being of his people (internalized). I believe that Christ not only fulfilled Torah by obeying it and embodying it, but he also distilled it into its essence (the Two Great Commandments - which were drawn from Torah). In doing so, Christ made the letter of the Law obsolete. This new spirit of the Law finds its most eloquent expression in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, but it also finds expression in Paul's declaration that love does no harm to anyone and thus fulfills the requirements of the Law.
Now, more particularly, I think that the view that you are advocating about Israel's relevance to God's salvific plan (through your excerpts from the scholars you cited) is flawed. God intended for Israel to introduce him to the rest of humankind and to make them a vehicle for fulfilling God's promises to their ancestor (Abraham) that all of the nations of the earth would be someday blessed through him. From my perspective, Christ is the descendant through whom that promise is kept. Unfortunately, Israel failed in its God-ordained mission, and the conditional Sinai covenant was abrogated. In short, I believe (as does most of traditional Christianity) that salvation is through Jesus Christ - period - NO additional requirements - no other person or persons. Now, because our God is a merciful and loving entity, he has NOT abandoned Israel. Like you, I believe that Israel will eventually be saved through Jesus Christ.
continued below
Now, we come to the most profound differences in our views. I believe that Christ initiated a NEW Covenant and made the OLD one obsolete. I believe that Christ founded an Ecclesia which was fundamentally different from the Church in the Wilderness. In that body, Paul said that there was neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female. Under the New Covenant, those distinctions disappear. According to the New Testament, the original Church was entirely Jewish. Moreover, like the Israelites before them, the twelve initially failed to follow through on the Great Commission which Christ had given to them. As a consequence, Christ raised up the Apostle Paul and others to carry his message to the Gentiles. Yes, of course, this resulted in a great many folks who had little or no experience in Judaism coming into the Ecclesia. At the Jerusalem Council, this resulted in the collective human leadership of the Church (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) making the decision that Gentiles would NOT be required to follow the tents of the Old Covenant. And, as the Church was both Jewish and Gentile thereafter, there were saints meeting on Sabbath, and there were saints meeting on Sunday. There were saints keeping the Holy Days, and other who were not.
Finally, after the events of 70 AD, it became literally impossible for both Jews and Jewish Christians to continue to observe the tenets of Torah. Now, I don't believe that this was a coincidence. I believe that this was the definitive statement that the Old Covenant had ended. Hence, while there is certainly value in Torah and the prophets (in that they point to Christ), they have been fulfilled by Christ. It is, therefore, redundant and unnecessary for Christians to attempt to obey those tenets (and we must never forget that it is physically impossible to do so in the manner prescribed therein). Even so, I do appreciate your very thoughtful perspective and contributions to our discussion (and I did carefully read all of it).
Scout,
I appreciate your remarks. I was writing my own response to Anonymous in four parts, when your remarks were posted. I believe that that represents the Holy Spirit working on the minds of two individuals at the same time! You hit the nail on the head!
Anonymous in two parts,
Bravo, and Amen!
Hi Millar,
As usual we will have to agree to disagree on some things.
Ac 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
I am not aware of your thoughts on the restoration of the kingdom to Israel and the new/renewed covenant with her.
As I have noted before, for me there are two administrations of the NC - the NC with Israel the Church and the NC with Israel the Kingdom; which I refer to as the Sarah and Keturah Administrations respectively; Hagar being the OC administration.
The Sarah Administration is divided into two (cp. the two parts to the OC “tabernacle” dispensation).
In the second part, the Israel of God will replace Satan and the demons in the heavenlies (cp. Eph 6:12 & 12); the priestly reward is in the heavenly holy of holies (cp. Rev. 7:15).
“We, too, are in the wilderness, and are called to journey through it “as strangers and pilgrims,” not to settle down in it as though it was our home..; the death prefigured by Jordan is our death with Christ, and Canaan is resurrection-ground, the heavenly places of Ephesians... As priests and Levites there is work for us in the land as well as in the wilderness... in most cases [in the land the Levites were] divided between their own homes and lodging “round the house of God”...” (Ada R. Habershon, Study of the Types, pp.204-05).
For me the destruction of the Second Temple no more ended the Levitical priesthood than did the destruction of the First Temple.
Jer 31:29 In those days...
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD...
Jer 33:14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD...
Jer 33:15 In those days, and at that time,
In the last days of the OC Kingdom of God, God made a promise in Jer 31 [cp. Heb 8] that He would make a NC with the House of Israel and Judah; and in Jer 33 that the Davidic kings and Levitical priests would also be restored.
Jer 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
“It is a wild hyperbole; Israel would not fine it beneficial to have that many descendants of David or Levi” (John Goldingay, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, p.699). :)
Eze 43:7A And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever
The divine presence in the Millennial Holy of Holies will require the restoration of the sacrificial system for the “purifying of the flesh” - hence the need for Levitical priests.
Lev 16:33 and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the people of the community.
Eze 45:20b so you are to make atonement for the temple. (NIV).
The above scriptures deal with the need for an annual cleansing of God’s earthly dwelling place from the impurities generated by sins that were not atoned for during the year, to maintain the divine presence.
Eze 43:20 You are to take some of its BLOOD and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify the altar and make ATONEMENT for it.
As Walther Zimerli notes:
In 43:20 and 45:19f it can be seen that the expiatory power is especially attributed to the blood" (Ezekiel 2 - A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, p.479).
The success of the New/Renewed Covenant with Israel will require two priesthoods, one in heaven and one on the earth.
PS: In the ‘typology,’ in the last post, between the kingdom and the church, I could have added that there is a reversal in that where the northern kingdom eventually disappeared from history and the Jews remained visible it was the Sabbath-keeping Christians that disappeared or became invisible to the world at large. There will be a future judgment for keeping Sunday.
What I really thought was so cool, was what my buddy from the Chabad movement shared with me. The Torah was never used as a catty nine tails on them, so they loved it. On some of the holy days, they actually danced while embracing the Torah.
HWA always said that it isn't necessarily the thing that was evil, but the use of the thing! The reason there is so much hatred for the laws of the OT amongst the former WCG community is the way HWA and his goon squad clubbed us half to death with it. If you waterboarded children with Coca Cola, they would come to hate soda!
I do not hate Torah. I believe that Torah has much to teach us about Jesus Christ. I continue to observe the weekly Sabbath, and I look forward to it every week. Even so, I also now recognize that Scripture teaches that Christians are NOT obligated to observe the tenets of God's covenant with Israel. That also doesn't mean lawlessness. Loving God and each other brings happiness and joy - it is NOT a chore. I do, however, agree with you that Herbie made life in his church a chore - we were all deceived and oppressed.
Post a Comment