Jewish-Christian instead of Church?

Continuing with the logic I have attempted to outline previously, we are by no means required to practice the Passover any longer, whether Jewish believer or Gentile (yes I know it was meant for Jews alone, but I'm being inclusive to illustrate a point). Does that mean, however, that going to a Seder meal is improper? Not at all! I encourage all my Baptist brothers and sisters to participate in a Seder meal and see for yourself just how much it means with Christ as the central focus. It's wonderful and will open your eyes. Again, it should never take the place of the Lord's Supper, which is the commanded remembrance of our Savior's fulfillment of the Law, and supercedes the Mosaic covenant.

 

8o) How, then, do all of you deal with this aposto-
lic Scripture:

Clearly, we are told to keep the Passover; to
claim we are not is to twist the Scripture until it
screams in pain.

With regard to the book of Hebrews, I am amazed!
Amazed that you assume, and act upon the
assumption, that we do not believe and love the
book of Hebrews, a book written to comfort the
Jews in difficult times! Not amazed that it is
obvious that you do not understand the new and
old covenants! I would suggest that you learn
what these are, using Scripture only. What do the
Scriptures say they are?

 

This passage from the first Corinthian letter relates to Paul's admonition to root out the sexual immorality which was a problem for the church at that time. Paul is using the Passover as a metaphor for illustration and instruction. He even states in no uncertain terms that Christ is our Passover Lamb that has been sacrificed for us, and that removing the wicked person from the congregation is a reminder not to eat the "old bread" of wickedness and evil, but to eat the "new bread" of purity and truth.

I love ya, Abiyah, but you are simply incorrect to suggest that this is instruction to keep the Passover meal from Paul. It is, in fact, no such thing.

 

Well, Char, we disagree again. 8o) While the
Scripture in toto is about sexual purity, Paul uses
the Passover as an illustration because this is
what the people he is writing to understand. They
are keeping Passover, and they can understand
what Paul is saying by relating his instruction to
the Passover.

Interesting, too, that the Corinthian believers he
was writing to were mainly Gentiles, and he was
confident that they would understand.

 

One of my "hobbies" is studying what the Scriptures say about the Old and New Covenants. I believe it to be one of the most misunderstood doctrines in Scripture. Misunderstood IMHO by Covenant theologians, dispensationalists, and Messianic Jews.

Passover is the celebration feast of Old Covenant Israel's release from physical bondage to Egypt. It looked forward typologically to Christ. At the last Passover supper with His disciples, Christ initiated the feast of the New Covenant-which we know as the Lord's supper. It celebrates the release of spiritual Israel from bondage to sin. Christ fulfilled the Passover and asked us to remember His sacrifice by partaking of the Lord's Supper. We "keep the feast" as Christians in Christ. He is the passover--the type is forever fulfilled in Him.

A believer in the better covenant,

Tim

 

SInce you assume that I do not understand what
the old and new covenants are, perhaps you
could tell us what they are so that I will see the
error of my ways?? 8o)

 

Abiyah, sorry if I sound like I'm being difficult, it's nothing personal. So I hope you don't take offense.

Here's the basic covenant scenario as I see it in Scripture:

1. God's covenant with Abraham was a covenant of faith. Ultimately it looked forward to fulfillment in Christ--THE seed of Abraham (Romans 4, Gal. 3: esp. v. 16). All those who put their faith in Christ inherit the promises of Abraham. So this covenant anticipated the New Covenant.

2. The Mosaic covenant was made with the physical children of Israel. It was initiated at Sinai, and came to its conclusion at the cross (when the veil rent), though hollow vestiges of it remained until the Temple's destruction (Heb. 8). It was a covenant of works--intended for the condemnation of unbelieving Israel, yet its many types and shadows still anticipated God's mercy in ultimately sending the Messiah to fulfill the Law and free believers from bondage to it (2 Cor 3, Gal. 4:21-31).

3. The New Covenant was initiated when Christ shed His blood for the remission of sin(Mat. 26:28). The Lord's supper is it's symbol, or feast. It was initially made with Jewish believers only, though believing gentiles were grafted in (Rom. 11). It is only for believers (Jer. 31:34, Heb. 8). It is the message of the gospel (2 Cor. 3:6). It is in every way superior to the Old Covenant (Law of Moses), even as being a son is superior to being a servant (Gal. 3, 4:21-31), as a ministration of life is superior to a ministration of death (2 Cor. 3), and as a later will and testament supercedes the legal authority of an earlier will and testament (Heb. 9). It is the ultimate purpose of God in Christ Jesus (Heb.12:18-29) fulfilled in spiritual realities which will never be destroyed, and brings together the O.T. saints and the New testament church (Jews and gentiles)in one body (Heb. 12:23-24, Eph. 2).


I believe covenant theologians err by not recognizing the vast differnces between the Old and New--in fact calling them one covenant.

I believe many dispensationalists err in believing that the New Covenant is either not yet fully in place (waiting for fully restored Israel),or that it will be superceded by the Old Covenant at some time in the future (tribulation or millenium).

I believe Messianic Jews err by wanting to continue to live under Old Covenant regulations today, rather than recognizing the liberty of the New Covenant, and the complete fulfillment of Old Testament shadows--hence their discontinuation.

That about sums it up. Have a blessed day celebrating the resurrection of our Lord.

As always, a believer in the better covenant,

Tim

 

Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted two ordinances to be observed by all believers until His return -- water baptism (by immersion) to show forth our identification with the crucified, buried, and risen Savior (Matt. 28:19; Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12) and the Lord's Supper as the commemoration of His death until He comes (1 Cor. 11:23-26).
The Biblical dispensations are divinely ordered stewardships, or rules of life (not ways of salvation), by which God administers His purpose on Earth through man under varying responsibilities in successive ages. Each dispensation begins with man being divinely placed in a new position of privilege and responsibility, and each closes with a failure of man resulting in righteous judgment from God. Three of these dispensations, or rules of life, are the subject of extended revelation in Scripture. They are the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the present dispensation of Grace (the Church age), and the future dispensation of the Millennial Kingdom. They are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused, as they are chronologically successive. (Jn. 1:17; 1 Cor. 9:17; 2 Cor. 3:9-18; Gal. 3:13-25; Eph. 1:10; Col. 1:24,25; Heb. 7:19; Rev. 20.:2-6).

 

To dispensational defenders:
You may have noticed that I qualified my criticism of dispensationalism with the words "many dispensationalists". I have indeed heard these general comments made by dispensationalist teachers. Though many would not say specifically that the Old Covenant will someday replace the New Covenant, they do reintroduce many Old Covenant concepts into future dispensations, minimizing the corresponding New Covenant fulfilments. I've been around dispensational teaching my whole life--so I think I've heard nearly every variety at one time or another.

Incidently, I agree that Covenant theology is much more mistaken on this particular issue--they have totally missed the boat in regards to the Old/New covenants.

So I hold to neither of the systems above, but rather to New Covenant Theology. I believe it is the only system to consistenly uphold the superiority and permanence of the New Covenant.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Boy this topic dried up didn't it. The last few replies, including mine, were quite relevant. Where is Abiyah? Maybe she went on a cruise or something.

 

Yes, everybody left what seemed to be a hot topic with many unanswered questions. Maybe spring break.

But anyway Chargrove, an as amil, I plead guilty to mixing two of your dispensations, i.e. church age & kingdom age. I believe they are the same thing. My main concern about this, leaving eschatology aside (if that's possible), is that your future millenium adopts many elements from the Old Covenant, such as worship at a physical temple building and so-called "memorial sacrifices" there. These would fly in the face of clear New Covenant teaching deemed eternal and associated presently with the church.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Well, Abiyah, thanks. Your posts have been very informative.

 

So no one else here has been infomative to you? My feelings are hurt. I think I feel a tear coming on...I should go now.

 

Tim --

Sorry -- I have been away from the board as well
as out of town. I am trying to set my computer up
so that I can start receiving Internet on it, because
this system is so laborious. For one who is
computer-illiterate, this is a major job. I also have
reams of stuff I stored on the hard drive, all of
which must come off and be placed on disks.
Then there is that discovery of that ancient game
to which I have become enthralled -- Forgive me!
I have been away!

With regard to your notes about the covenants, I
must admit that I am disappointed. I have tried
to think of how to respond, but I really don't know
what to say. I thought maybe you had done some
deep studies and that I could possibly learn
something.

I would suggest that maybe you could study what
a covenant is -- just its simple definition. Who
makes them? In what ways are they binding? For
how long are they binding? Etc.

Then perhaps you could check into the suzerain /
vassal covenants and compare them to those in
the Bible: Compare the wording. Compare the
expected responses. Compare the actual
responses. Compare the promises (both positive
and negative), the witnesses, ratification, etc.

Then maybe you could look into how many biblical
covenants there were / are. Are the parts
interconnected, etc.

[ April 29, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

After just lurking at this thread, I decided to finally add to the discussion.
It seems evident to me that all here are very well versed in the aspect of "Judaizers" as we should all be. The ceremonial law cannot SAVE anyone and that we all, Jew and Gentile, attest to quite well. However, there is the issue of the moral commandments/law which likewise do not save but yet have a very real purpose and are adhered to by saved Gentiles and Jews alike. When one usually speaks of the abrogation of "The Law", the thought is that none of the law has any meaning or effect today and the best thing for all to do is to generally forget it. And, if it isn't followed (The Moral Law-10 Commandments included)it really isn't all that bad because it's done away. Excuse me, but that sounds like a blanket aquittal for sin. The Apostle of Y'shua, Shaul (Paul) did make it crystal clear that we are not saved by the deeds of the law, but only by the finished work of Y'shua. Salvation is by grace through faith, it is the gift of G-d not of works lest any man boast. He also said to let no man judge you in respect to a holy day...and that he who keeps the day keeps it unto the Lord and he who does not keep it does so unto the Lord. The Lord Y'shua obviously kept all of the Feasts and there is no condemnation of them to be found in the New Testament by Him nor His Apostles. However, to force non-Jews to keep them as a requirement for salvation is openly declared wrong.
But, there is another aspect that this thread has not touched upon, that being the reverse...the "Gentilizers". This being an overt command to act as a Gentile in order to be saved and a member of a True Church. As wrong as it was in the First Century to require a non-Jew to be circumcised and keep the Law in order to be saved, it is just as wrong to require a Jew to be uncircumcised and ignore the Law (ie. Kashrut{kosher food}) to be saved and a member of a church. Contrary to supposed opinion we do have Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians and more than that..we have Jewish churches..we have Gentile churches and we have mixed churches! The kicker is that not only do we have them now, we also have them in the New Testament.
The Big Question is "WHAT IS A JEW?" Abiyah can really appreciate that statement.
Methinks that this declassification and denigation of Jews is traced right back to Augustine and Mama Rome, who throughout history has never been a friend to the Jew nor Baptist.
Now as far as living righteous is concerned, even Lord Y'shua said that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees you shall in no wise enter in to the Kingdom of Heaven. Quit trying to spiritualize this statement. If a Jew won't eat pork because of Kashrut, then don't you think it's a good idea not to eat it because of your hypertension and you need to be around a little longer to do the job that HE told you to do?
Brethren, for years even the most liberal among us has heard and declared that we are Baptist because that is the closet thing to what Our Lord started. While I know that we are the thing that HE started, I must consent that if we are the real thing it's time to act like it. Like it or not we must actually see True Messianic congregations as ourselves..just Jewish.
Remember if you keep the 10 Commandments, then you are keeping the Law, not to be saved but because you are saved. And believe me..that will make all the difference to that lost soul seeking for a true Christian, as was Mohandas Gandhi.
Your brother
John
2 COR. 13:8

 

After just lurking at this thread, I decided to finally add to the discussion.
It seems evident to me that all here are very well versed in the aspect of "Judaizers" as we should all be. The ceremonial law cannot SAVE anyone and that we all, Jew and Gentile, attest to quite well. However, there is the issue of the moral commandments/law which likewise do not save but yet have a very real purpose and are adhered to by saved Gentiles and Jews alike. When one usually speaks of the abrogation of "The Law", the thought is that none of the law has any meaning or effect today and the best thing for all to do is to generally forget it. And, if it isn't followed (The Moral Law-10 Commandments included)it really isn't all that bad because it's done away. Excuse me, but that sounds like a blanket aquittal for sin. The Apostle of Y'shua, Shaul (Paul) did make it crystal clear that we are not saved by the deeds of the law, but only by the finished work of Y'shua. Salvation is by grace through faith, it is the gift of G-d not of works lest any man boast. He also said to let no man judge you in respect to a holy day...and that he who keeps the day keeps it unto the Lord and he who does not keep it does so unto the Lord. The Lord Y'shua obviously kept all of the Feasts and there is no condemnation of them to be found in the New Testament by Him nor His Apostles. However, to force non-Jews to keep them as a requirement for salvation is openly declared wrong.
But, there is another aspect that this thread has not touched upon, that being the reverse...the "Gentilizers". This being an overt command to act as a Gentile in order to be saved and a member of a True Church. As wrong as it was in the First Century to require a non-Jew to be circumcised and keep the Law in order to be saved, it is just as wrong to require a Jew to be uncircumcised and ignore the Law (ie. Kashrut{kosher food}) to be saved and a member of a church. Contrary to supposed opinion we do have Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians and more than that..we have Jewish churches..we have Gentile churches and we have mixed churches! The kicker is that not only do we have them now, we also have them in the New Testament.
The Big Question is "WHAT IS A JEW?" Abiyah can really appreciate that statement.
Methinks that this declassification and denigation of Jews is traced right back to Augustine and Mama Rome, who throughout history has never been a friend to the Jew nor Baptist.
Now as far as living righteous is concerned, even Lord Y'shua said that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees you shall in no wise enter in to the Kingdom of Heaven. Quit trying to spiritualize this statement. If a Jew won't eat pork because of Kashrut, then don't you think it's a good idea not to eat it because of your hypertension and you need to be around a little longer to do the job that HE told you to do?
Brethren, for years even the most liberal among us has heard and declared that we are Baptist because that is the closet thing to what Our Lord started. While I know that we are the thing that HE started, I must consent that if we are the real thing it's time to act like it. Like it or not we must actually see True Messianic congregations as ourselves..just Jewish.
Remember if you keep the 10 Commandments, then you are keeping the Law, not to be saved but because you are saved. And believe me..that will make all the difference to that lost soul seeking for a true Christian, as was Mohandas Gandhi.
Hey, we are called by the name-title of the greatest man born of a woman..more than a prophet, John the Baptist.
Your brother
John
2 COR. 13:8

 

After just lurking at this thread, I decided to finally add to the discussion.
It seems evident to me that all here are very well versed in the aspect of "Judaizers" as we should all be. The ceremonial law cannot SAVE anyone and that we all, Jew and Gentile, attest to quite well. However, there is the issue of the moral commandments/law which likewise do not save but yet have a very real purpose and are adhered to by saved Gentiles and Jews alike. When one usually speaks of the abrogation of "The Law", the thought is that none of the law has any meaning or effect today and the best thing for all to do is to generally forget it. And, if it isn't followed (The Moral Law-10 Commandments included)it really isn't all that bad because it's done away. Excuse me, but that sounds like a blanket aquittal for sin. The Apostle of Y'shua, Shaul (Paul) did make it crystal clear that we are not saved by the deeds of the law, but only by the finished work of Y'shua. Salvation is by grace through faith, it is the gift of G-d not of works lest any man boast. He also said to let no man judge you in respect to a holy day...and that he who keeps the day keeps it unto the Lord and he who does not keep it does so unto the Lord. The Lord Y'shua obviously kept all of the Feasts and there is no condemnation of them to be found in the New Testament by Him nor His Apostles. However, to force non-Jews to keep them as a requirement for salvation is openly declared wrong.
But, there is another aspect that this thread has not touched upon, that being the reverse...the "Gentilizers". This being an overt command to act as a Gentile in order to be saved and a member of a True Church. As wrong as it was in the First Century to require a non-Jew to be circumcised and keep the Law in order to be saved, it is just as wrong to require a Jew to be uncircumcised and ignore the Law (ie. Kashrut{kosher food}) to be saved and a member of a church. Contrary to supposed opinion we do have Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians and more than that..we have Jewish churches..we have Gentile churches and we have mixed churches! The kicker is that not only do we have them now, we also have them in the New Testament.
The Big Question is "WHAT IS A JEW?" Abiyah can really appreciate that statement.
Methinks that this declassification and denigation of Jews is traced right back to Augustine and Mama Rome, who throughout history has never been a friend to the Jew nor Baptist.
Now as far as living righteous is concerned, even Lord Y'shua said that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees you shall in no wise enter in to the Kingdom of Heaven. Quit trying to spiritualize this statement. If a Jew won't eat pork because of Kashrut, then don't you think it's a good idea not to eat it because of your hypertension and you need to be around a little longer to do the job that HE told you to do?
Brethren, for years even the most liberal among us has heard and declared that we are Baptist because that is the closet thing to what Our Lord started. While I know that we are the thing that HE started, I must consent that if we are the real thing it's time to act like it. Like it or not we must actually see True Messianic congregations as ourselves..just Jewish.
Remember if you keep the 10 Commandments, then you are keeping the Law, not to be saved but because you are saved. And believe me..that will make all the difference to that lost soul seeking for a true Christian, as was Mohandas Gandhi.
Hey, we are called by the name-title of the greatest man born of a woman..more than a prophet, John the Baptist.
Your brother
John
2 COR. 13:8

 

Abiyah,
I don't like long posts--I think a short summary works better in this format. So my purpose was simply to delineate the differences between the systems mentioned.Sorry if that dissappointed you. If you want to read tomes on New Covenant theology you can easily find them on the internet. John Zens is one of my favorite writers on the subject, also John Reisinger. There's also a recent book by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel on the subject.
Frankly, one of my dissappointments with Messianic Jews that I've known is that they seem to feel greater kinship with those in their ethnic group (beleivers or not) than others within the Christian faith who don't agree with them on their particular system of beliefs. Coorespondingly, they also seem to put a lot of stock in rabbinic writings--more than many historically respected Christian writers.
I remember reading a critique of the movement which echoed similar sentiments from the Jewish pastor of a Baptist church in Jerusalem (whose name escapes me at present--Baruch Moaz maybe ???). Antway, he thought, as I do, that the movement thus sends a mixed message similar to the Judiazing movement of the first century--not claiming the O.T. Law's necessity for salvation, but for righteous living. A divisive problem that Paul addressed extensively in the book of Galatians.
So perhaps we're at an impasse on this subject. But I hope you'll still feel free to share your further thoughts on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. I am curious to hear your reasoning.

And welcome back, btw!

In Christ,

Tim