Glass of water and O.T. Law analogy

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:33 pm

Emmet, I enjoy your style of writing but I must admit to being baffled as to what you actually believe. If this is too far off topic we can start another discussion but I'm curious what form of Judaism (if any) you hold to and why. If you feel this is none of my business, feel free to say so. It's just difficult to dialogue with someone without some frame of reference. Even on the super highway (do people still use that term?) I like to put a "face" with a name, especially in a close-knit cyber community like this.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_roblaine
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by _roblaine » Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:08 pm

Hi Emmet,

Ah, so we move from appealing to scripture to appealing to history .

Why not appeal to history? How else should we look to see if a prophecy has been fulfilled?


Having failed to prove that such prophecy exists in the first place, one is hard put to prove its fulfillment in history.
It is not that the prophecy has not been proven to exist and fulfilled, but rather you chose not to see it.
So you cannot see how my statement is "entirely truthful," yet you concede that the temple is not necessary to the "old" covenant.

The temple is to be distinguished from the sacrificial cultus. The sacrificial cultus is part of the Law, but there is no need whatsoever for it to be carried out in a temple. Indeed, one could argue that the temple wound up constraining the genius of the Law, as it effectively terminated the mobility of the sanctuary.
I can't see how your statement is "entirely truthful" because, the temple itself is not a requirement but, the temple represents something that is required, namely a Tabernacle. Of course I stated this in my earlier post.
When exactly has Israel been brought back from captivity, to possess the land? They are called, after all, the "Ten Lost Tribes."
Were not all Jewish people free to return to the land upon the decree of Cyrus King of Persia (Ezra 1:2-4) and King Artaxerxes(Ezra 7:11-27)? And many did return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, and once again fulfill their obligations under the law.
Not so surprising, in light of the early Christian expectation that the end of this world was imminent.
I would not say " they thought the end of the world was imminent" but rather that is was "inevitable".
When Christians seek to cavil at such things, they demonstrate that they are true legalists, concerned more with the letter of the Law than the spirit it is intended to serve.
I do see the Old Covenant as legalistic, and why shouldn't I? At the same time I don't denie the spirtual nature of the Law.
A little piano, a little penmanship, a mess of free-throws, and the Torah. Of course, some of their practice has suffered under the weight of centuries of traditional thought (a circumstance which Christianity so clearly has managed to avoid). But I still have hope that they'll grow past the technique of "Air Shmuely"....
Maybe you can educate me. How does one practice the Torah, and is there anyone who practice everthing the Torah teaches?

Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
God Bless

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to JC

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:49 pm

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.
I enjoy your style of writing....
It's nice for you to say this. I'm afraid, though, that I too often neglect to clarify things. I also stumble at times in getting too snarky or adversarial.

...but I must admit to being baffled as to what you actually believe. If this is too far off topic we can start another discussion....
That might be broadening beyond the parameters of this thread. It also seems unduly egotistical to start another thread devoted to my thought. I'd prefer to engage things on an incidental basis. If you browse my backlog of postings, there's a lot of evidence there, and I'd be willing to revisit some of those postings if you had related questions.

I'm curious what form of Judaism (if any) you hold to and why.
In an American context, I suppose I fit best with the Conservative denomination, though it's not a perfect fit. The Conservatives are relatively more observant of Torah than the Reform, yet relatively more flexible than the Orthodox. But I do not "hold to" any denominational form.

I'm a freethinker, and my religious thought has been informed by numerous tributaries, including a variety of Christian traditions and scholastic engagement of religious matters. To articulate "why" I think the way I do would involve some thirty years of religious (and secular) encounter, exploration, and experience, which is too ambitious for me at the moment :( .

Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_JC
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:18 pm

Post by _JC » Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:04 pm

Emmet, thank you... that helps. What I hate most about the internet is the annonymous nature of it. Not everyone wants their entire life story and social security number posted for the masses to peruse so it's understandable. My own view is that since we engage in pretty deep, life-affecting discussions on this forum, it's always nice to know who you are relating with and what angle they are coming from. That's the reason I don't visit other forums.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to roblaine

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:50 pm

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your reply.
It is not that the prophecy has not been proven to exist and fulfilled, but rather you chose not to see it.
I object. Submit your proof - or is it you who chooses to see the desire of your heart?

Let us be reasonable. Faithfulness to the Torah had been the constant hallmark of Jewish relationship with God for generations. Many had suffered violent consequences for failing to uphold it, and many had endured brutal consequences for refusing to compromise it. In their bible, it stated
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." [Deuteronomy 29:29]
and in their psalms, they sang
"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul" [19:7a] and "I will keep your law continually for ever and ever." [119:44b]
If all this was suddenly to be changed - if the shape of God's relationship with the Jewish people was to transform so radically as to toss aside the very construct for which and by which people had bled and died, the covenant which was carved in their very flesh - then should we not expect that Jesus would have made a straightforward, unambiguous statement to that effect? Should he not have done God's people the service of plainly saying: "Although this Law has been your way of life for many generations, God has chosen for you to abandon this way"?

And yet all we have attributed to Jesus in the New Testament (despite its own biases) is a handful of indefinite remarks and metaphors. The gospel writers do not dare to place such a plain speech in the mouth of Jesus. This in itself should give pause to those who wish to cast aside the Law of God.

I can't see how your statement is "entirely truthful" because, the temple itself is not a requirement but, the temple represents something that is required, namely a Tabernacle. Of course I stated this in my earlier post.
And so burning a flag may be a sign of condemnation toward a nation, because it represents a nation. Or it can be merely the proper way of disposing of the symbol once it has become tragically soiled.

The incidental expression should not be assigned undue significance.

Quote:
When exactly has Israel been brought back from captivity, to possess the land? They are called, after all, the "Ten Lost Tribes."


Were not all Jewish people free to return to the land upon the decree of Cyrus King of Persia (Ezra 1:2-4) and King Artaxerxes(Ezra 7:11-27)?


Ezra mentions Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, but none of the other tribes are mentioned; in Ezra 7 and following, the diction of "Israel" is employed, but it is not a given that this diction means to include the northern tribes (as in Jeremiah), who were dislocated some 136 years before the Jewish Captivity.

Like I said, I am not so sure about Jeremiah - which is not a definitive stand one way or the other. I suppose it is possible that some individual remnants of Israel (i.e., the northern tribes) may have returned, but their identity is lost to time.

I would not say " they thought the end of the world was imminent" but rather that is was "inevitable".
For what it is worth, conventional wisdom would hold that it took a while for the church's perspective to migrate from "imminent" to "inevitable." Cf. I Thessalonians 4:15-17, where Paul speaks as if he expects to be alive for the return of Jesus.

I do see the Old Covenant as legalistic, and why shouldn't I?
Because Near Eastern law of the time period was a different matter than the Western legal tradition that we most naturally subscribe to. In the West, law is abstractualized and impersonal, a matter of sheer text and principle and universally applied. In the Ancient Near East, law was a relational expression of the monarch, and a tool to be employed at the personal discretion of the king. In the West, the governor is subordinate to the law; in the Ancient Near East, the law was subordinate to the governor.

For Westerners, then, a legal code must be followed in every detail regardless of circumstance or character. For an Ancient Near Eastern context, however, the king could be flexible to whatever extent he found desirable. This plays out in Christian understandings of the Law. For Western Christians, the slightest infraction of the Law seems to necessarily result in death and alienation from God. An understanding of the Law in light of its context, however, allows greater room for the King to be lenient toward incidental imperfections, so long as he knows they are not symptomatic of essential problems in the heart of his subject(s). The Law is the relational servant of God; God is not in servitude to his legal invention.

Maybe you can educate me. How does one practice the Torah, and is there anyone who practice everthing the Torah teaches?
One practices the Torah by investing time, thought, and energy into fulfilling its standards within one's life. This practice involves prayer, study, and practical realignment of one's behavior.

At the present, I am not aware of anyone who practices everything the Torah teaches, due to the deficit of the sanctuary. Yet there is no absolute reason that everything the Torah teaches could not be practiced. God does not ask the impossible - and does not your bible state that all things are possible with God?


Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_roblaine
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by _roblaine » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:07 am

Hello Emmet,
I object. Submit your proof - or is it you who chooses to see the desire of your heart?

I will be happy to submit the scriptures that I believe make my point. However, I'm sure you will find it less than convincing, because you hold the four gospels in low regard, or believe they are drastically misunderstood by Christians.

Matthew 23:37-39
23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
23:38 See! Your house is left to you desolate;
23:39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!' "


When Jesus says" you shall see Me no more till you say,'blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'" He Indicates that Israel will need to be partakers in the New Covenant in order to be partakers in the kingdom of heaven. without Faith in Christ no one can Honor the Father.


Matthew 21:43, "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it

I mentioned this passage before, and I still thing it makes my point clearly. Jesus said this after telling the parable of the wicked vine dressers. One would be hard pressed not to see that the wicked men represent the nation Israel and how the treated, first the Prophets sent by God, and second the Son (Jesus). Then of course we see the judgment delivered by God. The kingdom will be taken away from them and given to another.


Matthew 21:18-19
21:18 Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry.
21:19 And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away.


It would seem out of Jesus' character to curse the tree for no other reason than being upset that it had no figs. Jesus curses the tree after clearing the Temple of money changers, and those selling doves. The leaders in Jerusalem were showing little reagard for theTemle and it's perpose.

Matthew 26:26-29
26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
26:29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."


The Establishment of the new covenant would not necessarily require the replacement of the old ,if not for the fact that after the crucification and resurrection of Jesus completed and fulfilled what the Old Covenant was pointing to.

Let us be reasonable. Faithfulness to the Torah had been the constant hallmark of Jewish relationship with God for generations. Many had suffered violent consequences for failing to uphold it, and many had endured brutal consequences for refusing to compromise it. In their bible, it stated

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." [Deuteronomy 29:29]
Deuteronomy 29:29 of course is proceeded by other verses.
Deuteronomy 29:18-19
29:18 so that there may not be among you man or woman or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the Lord our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations, and that there may not be among you a root bearing bitterness or wormwood;
29:19 and so it may not happen, when he hears the words of this curse, that he blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall have peace, even though I follow the dictates of my heart'--as though the drunkard could be included with the sober.


The covenant God had with Israel depended on their obedience. Again I appeal to Matthew 23:37. God was willing but the nation Israel was not, so they lost their inheritance.
and in their psalms, they sang
"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul" [19:7a] and "I will keep your law continually for ever and ever." [119:44b]
They may have sang the song, but they didn't "keep the Law continually for ever and ever".
If all this was suddenly to be changed - if the shape of God's relationship with the Jewish people was to transform so radically as to toss aside the very construct for which and by which people had bled and died, the covenant which was carved in their very flesh - then should we not expect that Jesus would have made a straightforward, unambiguous statement to that effect? Should he not have done God's people the service of plainly saying: "Although this Law has been your way of life for many generations, God has chosen for you to abandon this way"?

Mark 8:11-12
8:11 Then the Pharisees came out and began to dispute with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, testing Him.
8:12 But He sighed deeply in His spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."


Mark 4:10-12
4:10 But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable.
4:11 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables,
4:12 so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.' "


Jesus gave everyone plenty of reason to believe. He cast out demons, healed the sick and lame, and raised the dead. I'm sure if Jesus did what you suggested they still would not believe.
And yet all we have attributed to Jesus in the New Testament (despite its own biases) is a handful of indefinite remarks and metaphors. The gospel writers do not dare to place such a plain speech in the mouth of Jesus. This in itself should give pause to those who wish to cast aside the Law of God.
It seems that his words and teaching were clear enough to get him nailed to a cross by the leaders in Jerusalem. Why would they do such a thing? Because he make some vague comments, I think not. Jesus message was very clear and the Pharisees and Scribes Crucified Him for it.
And so burning a flag may be a sign of condemnation toward a nation, because it represents a nation. Or it can be merely the proper way of disposing of the symbol once it has become tragically soiled.
Are you saying that the Roman properly disposed of the Temple because it was worn out?
Ezra mentions Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, but none of the other tribes are mentioned; in Ezra 7 and following, the diction of "Israel" is employed, but it is not a given that this diction means to include the northern tribes (as in Jeremiah), who were dislocated some 136 years before the Jewish Captivity.

Like I said, I am not so sure about Jeremiah - which is not a definitive stand one way or the other. I suppose it is possible that some individual remnants of Israel (i.e., the northern tribes) may have returned, but their identity is lost to time.
I would also include Ezekiel 37:15-19
37:15 Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
37:16 "As for you, son of man, take a stick for yourself and write on it: 'For Judah and for the children of Israel, his companions.' Then take another stick and write on it, 'For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel, his companions.'
37:17 Then join them one to another for yourself into one stick, and they will become one in your hand.
37:18 "And when the children of your people speak to you, saying, 'Will you not show us what you mean by these?'--
37:19 say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God: "Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand." '

For what it is worth, conventional wisdom would hold that it took a while for the church's perspective to migrate from "imminent" to "inevitable." Cf. I Thessalonians 4:15-17, where Paul speaks as if he expects to be alive for the return of Jesus.
If conventional wisdom holds to this view, I can still see it differently. When Paul says "we who are still alive" it does not have to mean that he believed that he would be alive. He may have simply been referring to the Church as "we". Many Christians see the church as one. I think Paul wasn't sure if he would be alive,but he did not see the timing as all that important.
At the present, I am not aware of anyone who practices everything the Torah teaches, due to the deficit of the sanctuary. Yet there is no absolute reason that everything the Torah teaches could not be practiced. God does not ask the impossible - and does not your bible state that all things are possible with God?
Not to be disrespectfully, but what is holding you back? Why don't you and some of you Jewish friends build a sanctuary, find a Aaronic Priest and start sacrificing animals once again?

I appreciate you spending the time to answer my posts.

Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
God Bless

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to roblaine

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:20 pm

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your response.
I will be happy to submit the scriptures that I believe make my point.
To some major extent we are revisiting old ground. But here goes....

Matthew 23:37-39
23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
23:38 See! Your house is left to you desolate;
23:39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!' "


When Jesus says" you shall see Me no more till you say,'blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'" He Indicates that Israel will need to be partakers in the New Covenant in order to be partakers in the kingdom of heaven. without Faith in Christ no one can Honor the Father.
Our discussion at hand is not about the necessity or propriety of Jesus' new covenant. Our question is the ongoing necessity or propriety of the "old covenant."

Furthermore, it should be noted that this passage is directed to Jerusalem and set in context of the diatribe against the scribes and Pharisees - on both counts a rather narrower field than the whole of Israel. Taken together with our previous discussion of the temple (= the "house" of Jerusalem), it becomes apparent that this verse falls short of proving the point that the "old covenant" is done away with.

Matthew 21:43, "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it

I mentioned this passage before, and I still thing it makes my point clearly. Jesus said this after telling the parable of the wicked vine dressers. One would be hard pressed not to see that the wicked men represent the nation Israel and how the treated, first the Prophets sent by God, and second the Son (Jesus). Then of course we see the judgment delivered by God. The kingdom will be taken away from them and given to another.
This passage must be read in context. Jesus is talking with a specific audience: "And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching..." [21:23]. The parable is explicitly applied in this passage to these leaders and not to the whole of the people: "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet" [21:45f.].

If one is hard pressed to recognize this, it is because Christian theology has been anti-Jewish for so many centuries that it is difficult for it to consider texts with unbiased eyes. The whole of Israel has never boiled down to the character of its minority leadership.

And once again, as with the previous case, there is no explicit reference to an abolition of covenant here.

Matthew 21:18-19
21:18 Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry.
21:19 And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on you ever again." Immediately the fig tree withered away.


It would seem out of Jesus' character to curse the tree for no other reason than being upset that it had no figs. Jesus curses the tree after clearing the Temple of money changers, and those selling doves. The leaders in Jerusalem were showing little reagard for theTemle and it's perpose.
So (if you are correct), Jesus has a problem with the leadership and how they are conducting Temple affairs. Perhaps you can guess what I'd say next?

The Establishment of the new covenant would not necessarily require the replacement of the old ,if not for the fact that after the crucification and resurrection of Jesus completed and fulfilled what the Old Covenant was pointing to.
Great - we can converse from an agreement that the new does not necessarily replace the old(er).

The latter point, though - where does Jesus say that his crucifixion and resurrection fulfill the "old covenant" in such a way as to do away with it? Even if his life-experience were seen as fulfilling the themes of the old covenant in a typological way, that would not necessarily equate to the removal of the covenant.

The covenant God had with Israel depended on their obedience. Again I appeal to Matthew 23:37. God was willing but the nation Israel was not, so they lost their inheritance.
If you are going to appeal to 23:27, you are going to have to demonstrate how the "scribes and Pharisees" somehow subsume the entirety of Israel. Many of the people were neither scribes nor Pharisees. But most Christians are too biased (and historically ignorant) to pay close attention to detail.

For the sake of discussion, what of the thousands of Jewish people who are described as entering into Jesus' new covenant? Has Jesus annulled their foregoing covenantal responsibilities? If so, where does he articulate it?

They may have sang the song, but they didn't "keep the Law continually for ever and ever".
Was that my point?

Mark 8:11-12
8:11 Then the Pharisees came out and began to dispute with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, testing Him.
8:12 But He sighed deeply in His spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."

Mark 4:10-12
4:10 But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable.
4:11 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables,
4:12 so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.' "


Jesus gave everyone plenty of reason to believe. He cast out demons, healed the sick and lame, and raised the dead. I'm sure if Jesus did what you suggested they still would not believe.
You misengage the issue here. The gospels record Jesus' revelations to his intimate disciples. He clarified his parables for these men and women. How is it that these gospels - written by and for those who have faith - have no record of him clearly doing away with the old covenant?

It seems that his words and teaching were clear enough to get him nailed to a cross by the leaders in Jerusalem. Why would they do such a thing? Because he make some vague comments, I think not. Jesus message was very clear and the Pharisees and Scribes Crucified Him for it.
For doing away with the "old covenant"? Strange that the comments that got him crucified would have been left out of the gospels, then....

Or was it for challenging and condemning their authority or their sense of orthopraxy? Or was it for wading into a political tinderbox and flicking matches?

Are you saying that the Roman properly disposed of the Temple because it was worn out?
"Soiled." Thus needing replaced by another/clean implementation of the sanctuary cultus.

I would also include Ezekiel 37:15-19
37:15 Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
37:16 "As for you, son of man, take a stick for yourself and write on it: 'For Judah and for the children of Israel, his companions.' Then take another stick and write on it, 'For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel, his companions.'
37:17 Then join them one to another for yourself into one stick, and they will become one in your hand.
37:18 "And when the children of your people speak to you, saying, 'Will you not show us what you mean by these?'--
37:19 say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God: "Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand." '
This is a reference to the reunion of the twelve tribes. So where is Ephraim now? But this is really tangential at this point in our discussion, and we can hardly afford more space to indulge the rabbit trail :D .

If conventional wisdom holds to this view, I can still see it differently.
Hence the words "For what it is worth."

I have no wish to delve into a detailed discussion of early Christian eschatology. Your initial point was an argument from silence anyhow.

Quote: At the present, I am not aware of anyone who practices everything the Torah teaches, due to the deficit of the sanctuary. Yet there is no absolute reason that everything the Torah teaches could not be practiced. God does not ask the impossible - and does not your bible state that all things are possible with God?

Not to be disrespectfully, but what is holding you back? Why don't you and some of you Jewish friends build a sanctuary, find a Aaronic Priest and start sacrificing animals once again?
To my discredit, I am not spiritually prepared at this point in my individual development to engage that grave and holy task. But I am not dead yet. Who knows? Perhaps someday we may both come and offer sacrifices in truth to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at his holy sanctuary.


Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_roblaine
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by _roblaine » Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:27 am

Hello Emmet,


To some major extent we are revisiting old ground. But here goes....
I agree, but I was attempting to accommodate you once again.
Our discussion at hand is not about the necessity or propriety of Jesus' new covenant. Our question is the ongoing necessity or propriety of the "old covenant."
I see no need to segregate the two. And I wouldn't be alone.

Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


Jesus was more than capable of multitasking. He could fulfill the Law and the prophet (Matthew 5:17), while at the same time establish the New Covenant (Matthew 26:26-29)
Furthermore, it should be noted that this passage is directed to Jerusalem and set in context of the diatribe against the scribes and Pharisees - on both counts a rather narrower field than the whole of Israel. Taken together with our previous discussion of the temple (= the "house" of Jerusalem), it becomes apparent that this verse falls short of proving the point that the "old covenant" is done away with.
regardless, all of Jerusalem (except the remnant) fell under judgment from God. The only ones left in a continues relationship with God was the remnant. And that fact remains to this day.
This passage must be read in context. Jesus is talking with a specific audience: "And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching..." [21:23]. The parable is explicitly applied in this passage to these leaders and not to the whole of the people: "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet" [21:45f.].

If one is hard pressed to recognize this, it is because Christian theology has been anti-Jewish for so many centuries that it is difficult for it to consider texts with unbiased eyes. The whole of Israel has never boiled down to the character of its minority leadership.
You make an assumption without any bases! Jesus not only was talking about the Pharisees, but the entire religious establishment of Israel. God didn't give His vineyard only to the Pharisees. He gave it to all Israel as an inheritance. And He took it away when the abused the power given to them.

I find your statement about Anti-Jewish sentiment to be a cheep shot, and outside the realm of the debate.

In any case, when Jesus said:
Matthew 21:43,
"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it


The word used for nation is ethnos, Which literally means another race, specifically and foreign (non-Jewish) one. The Kingdom was taken away from the Nation Israel, not only the specific leaders that Jesus was addressing.
where does Jesus say that his crucifixion and resurrection fulfill the "old covenant" in such a way as to do away with it?
Jesus established the New Covenant in which we are saved by faith and not works, therefore there is no more need to work (Old Covenant) because God has provided a sacrifice for all people once and for all.

Genesis 22:8
And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering." So the two of them went together.

If you are going to appeal to 23:27, you are going to have to demonstrate how the "scribes and Pharisees" somehow subsume the entirety of Israel.
As you can see, I already covered this.
For the sake of discussion, what of the thousands of Jewish people who are described as entering into Jesus' new covenant? Has Jesus annulled their foregoing covenantal responsibilities? If so, where does he articulate it?
Jesus didn't annul their obligation, He fulfilled it for them. By Being found in Christ (not by works) they are saved. This goes for Jews and Gentiles alike.
How is it that these gospels - written by and for those who have faith - have no record of him clearly doing away with the old covenant?
You will find this explained in the letters of the apostles. It's my understanding, that at the time of Jesus' ministry the disciples were expecting a worldly kingdom where Jesus would overthrow the ruling authorities and establish the Kingdom of God Immediately. This is evident by the desertion of Jesus by His disciples when He was arrested, tried and crucified. The secrets of the kingdom were not revealed until after the resurrection. Jesus then gave them the great commission, and then it was revealed further at Pentecost when they received the Holy Spirit.
"Soiled." Thus needing replaced by another/clean implementation of the sanctuary cultus.
well, I've got good news! The Temple has been rebuilt. Its called the Church.
This is a reference to the reunion of the twelve tribes. So where is Ephraim now?
Ephraim was regather with the other tribes of Israel, and is now scattered among the nations once again.
Perhaps someday we may both come and offer sacrifices in truth to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at his holy sanctuary.
Or perhaps one day you will have a conversion experience which will allow you to honor God through faith in Jesus Christ.

Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
God Bless

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to roblaine

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:58 pm

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your reply.
I see no need to segregate the two. And I wouldn't be alone.
Well, our discussion at the moment is not so much in need of a rabbit trail in that direction :wink: . The second topic is not overly important to the one at hand, as we have both agreed that a new covenant does not necessarily replace a prior one.

Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Or maybe we are not agreed? At any rate, Hebrews is not Jesus, and there was disagreement in early centuries of the church as to its being scripture.

regardless, all of Jerusalem (except the remnant) fell under judgment from God. The only ones left in a continues relationship with God was the remnant.
And what then of the millions of Jews who did not inhabit Jerusalem?

And how many of the "remnant" were still Jewish?

And that fact remains to this day.
Easy to say; difficult to prove. One could have claimed the same thing after the Babylonian destruction.

You make an assumption without any bases!
No basis except the explicit distinction within the text itself between the audience (viz., the chief priests and the Pharisees) and the crowds who believed him a prophet (who were most likely Jewish, no?).

I find your statement about Anti-Jewish sentiment to be a cheep shot, and outside the realm of the debate.
Hardly. If I were to invoke anti-Semitism, that would be a cheap shot. But the anti-Jewish bias of Christianity is undeniable historically, and relevant to our present discussion. Much of Christian perspective defaults to a position that Jewish faith is invalid, and this obscures other potential avenues for interpretation. This is why one may find themselves hard-pressed to entertain alternate perspectives.

The word used for nation is ethnos, Which literally means another race, specifically and foreign (non-Jewish) one. The Kingdom was taken away from the Nation Israel, not only the specific leaders that Jesus was addressing.
Nice Greek word; lousy Greek definition. Ethnos is used multiple times in the gospels to refer to the nation of Israel - albeit always in Luke or John (7:5 & 23:2; 11:48, 11:50ff., 18:35). Furthermore, "race" is rather misleading, as it implies a genetic link; "people-group" would be more suitable, since the definition of the group could be more flexible than mere genetic relation. There is no reason why the nation receiving the Kingdom of God could not be faithful Israel (vs. the unfaithful oligarchy). But it is perhaps more likely that this verse is a reference to a people-group of faithful persons, some of whom are Jewish and some of whom are not; their inheritance of the Kingdom is the very definition which delineates their people-group. None of which, however, removes the particular responsibility of the Jewish members to maintain their covenant.

Quote: where does Jesus say that his crucifixion and resurrection fulfill the "old covenant" in such a way as to do away with it?

Jesus established the New Covenant in which we are saved by faith and not works, therefore there is no more need to work (Old Covenant) because God has provided a sacrifice for all people once and for all.

Genesis 22:8
And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering." So the two of them went together.
Nice quote from Genesis. "Where does Jesus say..."?

Jesus didn't annul their obligation, He fulfilled it for them. By Being found in Christ (not by works) they are saved. This goes for Jews and Gentiles alike.
And where does Jesus say this?

Quote: How is it that these gospels - written by and for those who have faith - have no record of him clearly doing away with the old covenant?

You will find this explained in the letters of the apostles. ... The secrets of the kingdom were not revealed until after the resurrection. Jesus then gave them the great commission, and then it was revealed further at Pentecost when they received the Holy Spirit.
Yet surely the gospels were written after Pentecost, and they could have outlined Jesus' teaching on this matter during the covenant post-resurrection period.


Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_roblaine
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by _roblaine » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:26 pm

Hello Emmet,
The second topic is not overly important to the one at hand, as we have both agreed that a new covenant does not necessarily replace a prior one.
Of course my position is that the new has replaced the old.
Or maybe we are not agreed? At any rate, Hebrews is not Jesus, and there was disagreement in early centuries of the church as to its being scripture.
Since the writer of Hebrews was likely a Apostle(Paul) or a contemporary of Paul's, the authority of the letter is not in question. In any case, the writer of Hebrews certainly had a better understanding of what Jesus' teachings on the subject than you or I. Its also interesting that the author was Jewish himself. If it were Paul himself than he was among the Pharisees.
And what then of the millions of Jews who did not inhabit Jerusalem?
I would consider them lucky, as long as they chose to believe in Jesus. Otherwise they would have lived out the rest of their life estranged from God.
And how many of the "remnant" were still Jewish?
If I had to guess, I would say 144,000.
Easy to say; difficult to prove. One could have claimed the same thing after the Babylonian destruction.
As far as I know, no one has made such a claim, nor would I.
Much of Christian perspective defaults to a position that Jewish faith is invalid
All faiths outside of that which is in Jesus is invalid. Seeing the wave of dispensationalism that has covered the Christian landscape, it seems your claim of anti-Jewish sentiment is way off base.

Personally, don't see much of a difference in any religions that are outside Christianity. All lead to the same destination.
Nice Greek word; lousy Greek definition. Ethnos is used multiple times in the gospels to refer to the nation of Israel - albeit always in Luke or John (7:5 & 23:2; 11:48, 11:50ff., 18:35). Furthermore, "race" is rather misleading, as it implies a genetic link; "people-group" would be more suitable, since the definition of the group could be more flexible than mere genetic relation. There is no reason why the nation receiving the Kingdom of God could not be faithful Israel (vs. the unfaithful oligarchy). But it is perhaps more likely that this verse is a reference to a people-group of faithful persons, some of whom are Jewish and some of whom are not; their inheritance of the Kingdom is the very definition which delineates their people-group. None of which, however, removes the particular responsibility of the Jewish members to maintain their covenant.
You can attempt to redefine the word ethnos all you want. The plain reading of the text indicates that the Kingdom of God is given to another nation.
Nice quote from Genesis. "Where does Jesus say..."?
Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 that He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets.

5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Certainly Abraham was a Prophet.
the gospels were written after Pentecost, and they could have outlined Jesus' teaching on this matter during the covenant post-resurrection period.
It would not seem unlikely that the Gospel writers wanted only to record the exact words of the Lord with out making their commentary part of the Gospel.

Thank you,
Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
God Bless

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”