identities

[eliyahu]

Thanks for reading Reggie's article. I agree with much of it but not all. I disagree with him in that I see 1 Cor 15 as referring to the end of the millenium, or in your case the end of this next-to-final age. I also do not see the millenial reign of the resurrected saints as invisible to the carnal eye. That is seemingly irrelevant speculation.
I cannot go into the breadth of your responces to his article and I would rather we contain our dialogue in here to our posts. It is to overwhelming to tackle His article here.
You did again mention that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. I believe that this teaching was addressed in the earlier part of this thread. The two verses that you might suppport this with do not at all eliminate the distinctiveness of the identity of the Jew or Gentile or their unique roles in the body of Messiah. That would also eliminate God's purpose to make the two groups one new man in the person of the Messiah in Eph 2:13-15.
By the way, Reggie's article and others by him and another highly respected, recently deceased brother named Art Katz are found at benisrael.org under the writings section, articles by Reggie Kelly.

[basilfo]

Hi eliyahu,
I'm at a loss to understand how one can read Jesus' words and the apostles' teaching in the NT and come away with any doctrine that allows for God to draw ANY distinction between people based on anything other than their relationship with Christ. Especially heritage which is what the scribes and Pharisees always tried to rest on.

So when you say 'Jews' (not Jews converted to Christians, but Jews who do not accept Christ as the Messiah) and 'Israel' still have a relevent covenantal role in God's eyes, I cannot find any support for that under the New Covenant.

As Richard quoted earlier, the OC and NC do not run together today.

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah --
9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.
10 "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
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.

Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar --
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children --
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, [You] who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac [was,] are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit, even so [it is] now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."

These passages show that the OC does not exist along side the NC. Gal 4:30 says it very clearly, no?

Paul put it pretty clearly in Rom 11. No matter what kind of branch you are - wild or natural, you can be both grafted in or trimmed off the tree. But that is solely based on belief in Christ, not heritage.

[eliyahu]

While I agree with you that trying to rest our salvation or spirituality on our physical heritage is wrong and fruitless, I think it is Biblically commanded honesty to acknowledge and recognize our distinctive personal identity now found in Christ, yet remaining male or female, Jew or Gentile.

This is how those of us who are Gentiles can heed Paul's call in Ehesians 2:11-13. "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh... remember that at that time you were seperate from Messiah, excluded form the commonwealth of israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Messiah Jesus you who were formerly far off have been brought near by the blood of Messiah."

This does not apply to Jews who have faith in Jesus! That is a Gentile specific callin in the NC scriptures.

Also Romans 11:11-13. "...they (Messiah rejecting Jews) did not stumble so as to fall (out of their covenant relationship with God), did they? May it never be! But by their transgression (the crucifixion and rejection of Messiah) salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them (currently Christ rejecting Jews) jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow (by building up the Gentiles in Christ through his ministry to Gentiles) I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them."
Paul saw the role of saved Gentiles as purposeful in relation the the unsaved Jews. He did not call Gentiles "Israel." He clearly distinguished the two didn't he? He was quite passionate about revealing the relationship between Israel and the church. The church is called to "provoke Israel to jealousy" and save them with the gospel. Israel is promised to be completely saved inthe future- Rom 11:26 "and so all Israel shall be saved."
Just read Romans 11 and notice the differences Paul gives to Israel and the church, specifically the Gentile portion of it. Notice the universal calling upon the church to Israel to provoke them to jealousy. This will happen and will be directly associated with the resurrection of the righteous dead- Rom 11:15.

[eliyahu]

As for gal 4:30... The bondwoman represents the legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands. It by no means represents "throwing out" the law or the old covenant! That would contradict Mat 5:17 and many other statements.
Faithless obediance to the law based out of confidence in our flesh (or our Jewishness) is what this is addressing here' "He who was born according to the flesh persecuted he who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also." Are we children of the promise based on our heritage as Jews (if we are indeed Jewish) or is our confidence in the Spirit whether we are Jewish or Gentile in the flesh? That is the issue Paul is addressing. He is not addressing Jewish believers' faith, but Jewish unbelievers claim to salvation based upon their circumcision, or possibly also "judaizers" who demand conversion to Judaism as a must for salvation for any Gentile with faith in Jesus.

[Rose]

Hello Eliyahu

As for gal 4:30... The bondwoman represents the legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands. It by no means represents "throwing out" the law or the old covenant! That would contradict Mat 5:17 and many other statements.
Faithless obediance to the law based out of confidence in our flesh (or our Jewishness) is what this is addressing here' "He who was born according to the flesh persecuted he who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also." Are we children of the promise based on our heritage as Jews (if we are indeed Jewish) or is our confidence in the Spirit whether we are Jewish or Gentile in the flesh? That is the issue Paul is addressing. He is not addressing Jewish believers' faith, but Jewish unbelievers claim to salvation based upon their circumcision, or possibly also "judaizers" who demand conversion to Judaism as a must for salvation for any Gentile with faith in Jesus.

The one thing to keep in mind concerning what you said about "throwing out the law", is.... there is no "law" left to throw out....it has vanished away. With the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. God made sure that there was NO O.C. left to keep, no one now can keep the O.C.. Christ came as the perfect sacrifice fulfilling the whole O.C. Law- then by His death "the death of the testator" a New Covenant was brought in....the Old one died.....It is No More! The New Covenant came in with Christs resurrection....He is the N.T..

When we take communion, we remember the N.T. in His blood, and keep the New Covenant by keeping Christ.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As for gal 4:30... The bondwoman represents the legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands. It by no means represents "throwing out" the law or the old covenant! That would contradict Mat 5:17 and many other statements.

Does Paul write a single word about "legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands?"

No.

Does Paul repeatedly speak of the CURSE OF THE TORAH as being the reason the Lord Jesus Christ had to die on the Cross?

Yes.

The New Covenant plainly declares that the Old Covenant was about to vanish away entirely.

And how does it contradict Mat 5:17? Jesus said that the Law would not pass UNTIL He fulfilled it, which he did no the Cross. What is left? You know you do not need to go to Temple, eat kosher, sacrifice animals and be circumcised to be justified in the sight of God, so what are you imagining to be the purpose of the Old Covnenant Law in the life of New Covenant believers?

Faithless obediance to the law based out of confidence in our flesh (or our Jewishness) is what this is addressing here' "He who was born according to the flesh persecuted he who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also." Are we children of the promise based on our heritage as Jews (if we are indeed Jewish) or is our confidence in the Spirit whether we are Jewish or Gentile in the flesh? That is the issue Paul is addressing. He is not addressing Jewish believers' faith, but Jewish unbelievers claim to salvation based upon their circumcision, or possibly also "judaizers" who demand conversion to Judaism as a must for salvation for any Gentile with faith in Jesus.

OK - Let's see if your interpretation holds up to a close review of the text. The allegory begins with a question in Gal 4:21:

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Is there anything in this verse that suggests Paul is using the phrase "under the law" to mean "faithless obediance to the law?" No. Paul was talking to Christians and whom he explicitly assumed to have faith earlier in the book when he wrote that they had "received the Spirit" and had "begun by faith":

Galatians 3:1-4 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

Paul began his argument with "do ye not hear the law?" He was speaking about the true and valid demands of God's Torah. He did not begin by asking "do you not hear the legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands by those unbelieving Jews?" That idea is found no where in the text at all. This is confirmed in the next part of Gal 4:22-2:

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

The text says that the TORAH "gendereth" (meaning begets or gives birth to) BONDAGE by its very nature. It has absolutely nothing to do with a "legalisitically perverted" interpretation of the "kinder and gentler" Torah that otherwise wouldn't cause bondage (and death through sin). On the contrary, it is the true and valid understanding of the Torah that brings bondage. This is what Paul meant in vs. 21 when he spoke of being "under the law." He was talking about the Jews faith in Torah as opposed to Christ. That is the whole point of the passage.

Richard

ETA: I am guessing you got this intepretation from some messianic teacher. Could you post the link? I'd like to refute the whole article.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

While I agree with you that trying to rest our salvation or spirituality on our physical heritage is wrong and fruitless, I think it is Biblically commanded honesty to acknowledge and recognize our distinctive personal identity now found in Christ, yet remaining male or female, Jew or Gentile.

I totally agree with the blue text, and totally disagree with the red.

This is how those of us who are Gentiles can heed Paul's call in Ehesians 2:11-13. "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh... remember that at that time you were seperate from Messiah, excluded form the commonwealth of israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Messiah Jesus you who were formerly far off have been brought near by the blood of Messiah."

This does not apply to Jews who have faith in Jesus! That is a Gentile specific callin in the NC scriptures.

I disagree. Both Jewish and Gentile Christians work together as one body to "provke" the unbelieving Jews to jealousy. And the Jew Paul himself said "If by any means I [Paul] may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them" (Romans 11:14). And besides that, there was a time when the natural born Jew Saul of Tarsus was "without Christ" and so by definition not a member of the Christian Church which is called "the commonwealth of Israel" in that passage. Now before you shout "Replacement Theology!!!" you must answer one simple question. Does that verse identify "having Christ" with "the commonwelath of Isreal?" Yes or no? It is easy to find the answer. All who "have Christ" are members of "the commonwealth of Israel" and all who do not have Christ are not members of "the commonwealth of Israel." Therefore every member of the "commonwealth of Israel" is a member of the Church, and every member of the Church is a member of the "commonwealth of Israel." Therefore, the two sets are absolutely identical, having exactly the same members, and we must conclude that the Bible clearly and unambiguously teaches that the Church is the Commonwealth of Israel.

Paul saw the role of saved Gentiles as purposeful in relation the the unsaved Jews. He did not call Gentiles "Israel."

Of couse not! The word "Israel" has many meanings, two of which are 1) the carnal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and 2) the community in covenant with God, which was NEVER composed only of Gentiles, but in the New Testament, it is the body of Christ, the True Israel, composed of Jews and Gentiles.

He clearly distinguished the two didn't he?

Yes, and he also distinguishes two Israels - the carnal unbelievers who are "not the children of God" versus the Christians (Jew or Gentile) who "as Isaac was, are the children of promise." (Gal 4:28)

He was quite passionate about revealing the relationship between Israel and the church. The church is called to "provoke Israel to jealousy" and save them with the gospel. Israel is promised to be completely saved inthe future- Rom 11:26 "and so all Israel shall be saved."

It does not say "in the future." And what do you think "all Israel" means anyway? Is arch-heretic sinner Jeroboam gonna be saved? He was the first king of Israel. I have never heard a convincing futurist interpretation of what "all Israel" means in that verses. Could you help on that point?

Richard

[eliyahu]

Does Paul write a single word about "legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands?"

No.

Yes he does, but not in word for word King-James-style English. He said "... does He who provides you with the Spirit... do it by works of the law (for Jews of that time, this meant being legally observant of Torah like pre-faith Saul as opposed to Torah obedience out of established faith like the righteous remnant before they heard of Jesus)... or faith." Ga 3:5.
And "for by grace you have been saved through faith... not by works (for Jews of that time, this meant being legally observant of Torah like pre-faith Saul as opposed to Torah obedience out of established faith like the righteous remnant before they heard of Jesus)." Eph 2:8-9.

You know you do not need to go to Temple, eat kosher, sacrifice animals and be circumcised to be justified in the sight of God, so what are you imagining to be the purpose of the Old Covnenant Law in the life of New Covenant believers?

The simple answer I believe you may agree on is that the law describes God's holiness, righteousness and goodness. It reflect his justice and mercy. It gives Israel hope for present and future salvation .It promises Israel revelation from the prophet to come (Jesus) which would surpass (yet never contradict) the Torah in authority. The Law is the plumbline of truth to test the prophets, Jesus, the apostles and every other NC minister.

We agree that no one, Jew or Gentile, is commanded to participate in temple sacrifices, etc to be justified. I will assert that no one is commanded not to do any of those things either, except when one was doing it for justification or salvation.
The purpose of the Law in the life of any NC believer is to vindicate and contextualize everything in the NC scriptures, just like many of the NC believers did with the Law in the NC scriptures. Just like Jesus and Paul exorted the people to do (like the noble Bereans).

OK - Let's see if your interpretation holds up to a close review of the text. The allegory begins with a question in Gal 4:21:

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Is there anything in this verse that suggests Paul is using the phrase "under the law" to mean "faithless obediance to the law?" No.

I would say there are numerous things in the text that define "under the law" to mean something like "in subjection to a "legal" styled obediance to the commandments not based out of justification by real faith." Before you laugh at the lenth of that statement, consider the following.

Paul was talking to Christians and whom he explicitly assumed to have faith earlier in the book when he wrote that they had "received the Spirit" and had "begun by faith":

Galatians 3:1-4 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Those people were believers who had "begun" their walk of faith in Jesus "in the Spirit" by faith. Now they are trying to save themselves/be justified by "the flesh." The "flesh" here is their personal ability to please God (in this case by converting to some form of Judaism for justification) totally independant from the Spirit received by faith alone. The flesh cannot please God/redeem/save anyone. By giving themselves over to "legalism" (flesh based, faithless "Torah observance) and not "obedience (to the Spirit and not the empty "letter" of the law) from faith" they were nullifying the grace of God.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

The text says that the TORAH "gendereth" (meaning begets or gives birth to) BONDAGE by its very nature. It has absolutely nothing to do with a "legalisitically perverted" interpretation of the "kinder and gentler" Torah that otherwise wouldn't cause bondage (and death through sin). On the contrary, it is the true and valid understanding of the Torah that brings bondage.

I will just say to you (not to Paul) "no." The Torah in and of itself, as God gave it and intended it to be received, brings life! Lev 18:5. One would come to know God through embracing the God of Israel by faith and thus embracing Torah is one was a Jew or had converted. The Torah, as many of the Jewish leadership had made it to be in the first century, had indeed become a "perversion" and legal styled twisting of what the Torah actually originally was. And by the way, one did not necessarily have to participate in the temple sacrifices, eat kosher, etc to be an OC Torah observant Jew. Daniel and all the exiled Jews did not ever go to the temple. Ezekiel was commanded to eat "defiled" food when the Spirit commanded it, etc, etc.
The Torah is not a system of justification for anyone nor was it ever. No Man of God embraced the Law as a means of salvation before Jesus came. That was not taught. In fact, when we read Psalm 119 and many other words of David and the prophets, I cannot see how such a negative portrayal of the law can come from the same Spirit who wrote those words in the Bible. Every Good and perfect gift comes from the Father according to James. Aside from Jesus Himself, one of the greatest gists was the Law! It was not a cursed gift bringing bondage coming from the changless Father of mercy. "bondgage" in Galations is talking about people who were hopelessly trying to save themselves by converting to Torah observance as a means of assuring one's salvation. I mean, Jesus, Paul and the apostles observed Torah their entire lives as far as the record shows! They did not have a problem with following the Law out of NC faith, they did that themselves. They did not call any Gentiles or Jews to begin embracing the Torah as a means to justification or as a "supplement" assuring their Spirituality or salvation.

ETA: I am guessing you got this intepretation from some messianic teacher. Could you post the link? I'd like to refute the whole article. [/QUOTE]

I got some of this in general from the Jewish New Testament Commentary by David Stern. I have not been referencing it at all in our converstion though. Please be careful to show love and respect for other teachers, even if they are in some error. After all, no one knows everything perfectly.

[eliyahu]

Israel has three meanings in the NT. It has two in the OT.
One meaning in the NT is the same as the rest of most of the Bible. It means "people who are Jewish." Another meaning is in Ro 9:6. "... Not all are Israel who are descended from Israel." The first "Israel" is addressing the Jews who are "of Faith" and trusting Jesus as salvation. The rest of the Christ rejecting Jews (infered in the verse) were conversly subjecting themselves to "works" of the Law as means of salvation apart from Christ. The second "Israel" in the verse is referring to Abraham's grandson previously known as Jacob.

[kathryn]

Hello Eliyahu...I can't think of anywhere in scripture, where "Israel" means..."people who are Jewish". Could you point out where this is the case?