Everything is permissable?

Open Heart said:

I do understand what you are saying. Believe me this is the best interpretation I can find on my own as well. But why does he have to say what is unlawful is lawful? All it does is cause a "HUH?" response. Surely he didn't use the best choice of words.

Click to expand...

At the risk of offending and you know I consider you a dear sister so please do not be offended, but I think you are hung up on two things. One, the language... the English has you unable to reconcile this as does something I called NDD at a conference I spoke at a few years ago. NDD stands for "Narrow Definition Disorder." We all have this from time to time and it is curable... NDD is when we force one meaning on a word, when our definitions are too narrow. We see "lawful" and have Torah in mind and it seems like Paul is saying something that almost more than infers that everything before him is now legal. But that really can't be correct. So, let's start over....

"All things are lawful for me"

The word for lawful is exesti, which is a third person singular present indicative of a compound consisting of "ek" which means "from or out" (ekklesia... "a calling out, an assembly") and eimi which means in this case because it isn't emphatic, "am" (as in Paul saying, "I am a Pharisee," the word for am is eimi). So literally we are saying, "am out." So my first point is to reiterate that the word nomos in any form is not in this word. Nomos is Greek for law, and though it appears in different forms, we generally get the "nom(o)" part in every form... and that isn't here. So in English he seems to be saying it is lawful, allowed in Torah, allowed by God... but that isn't in the language it is the English that forces this on us. What he is saying is all things are out before me, permissible in the sense of we CAN do them, able to be done if so desired but if he does certain things there won't be any benefit from them nor will certain things edify.

So this isn't a legal statement, it is just him saying "Since Adam WE have had to choose between right and wrong, good and evil, righteousness and unrighteousness and if I choose certain things I will not be edified or benefited because those things are in contrast to God's character and authority."

DaveW-Ohev said:

They have had my prayers since the 1990s. I have had a few email exchanges with them over the years, and got them to back off of one of their most aggregious positions - namely that there are no true gentiles alive any more.

Dan Juster is a personal friend of mine and I have discussed their doctrine with him. I hope I gave hm a more moderate viewpoint - that their "error" was a result of gentiles not being given a voice in the Messianic Jewish movement; and not even being welcome to attend some congregations.

But I do find their teachings dangerous.

I will pray for their health and spiritual well being.

Click to expand...

The division here is unacceptable. I am not talking about you per se, I don't know you. But I believe that I am part of Ephraim, prophetically Israel in the nations. However, I also understand that I might be wrong... but EVEN IF I am Dave, I am no different than the foreigners, the non-Israelites, who came out of Egypt with Israel. 3 things stand out about them... 1, when Torah was given it was given to Israel "and the stranger with them." 2, the foreigner was to be treated "as if native born." And 3, the foreigners eventually assimilated into the tribes they traveled with.

So... if I am wrong about Ephraim it doesn't matter because I am still part of Israel. Either way I am part of Israel because I attached myself to the God of Israel through the messiah of Israel... so I WAS a gentile, I WAS an alien of the Commonwealth of Israel, and I am NOW a "fellow citizen." What is dangerous are those who try to hamper God's work by assuming this is all a Jewish thing. No "Noachide laws" for me or anyone I fellowship with and speak to... that is a replacement of the covenant. The Noachide laws are as much replacement theology as some denominations who teach they replace Israel. Both are dangerous... the Wootens teach neither, nor do I. Batya believes she is part of Ephraim, but that is a prophetic statement more than a genealogical line. Her belief isn't "at the expense of others" meaning somebody gets left out. She is just saying, "You are Israel and so am I." And like anyone new to something especially that God is doing... we should expect to look into our past and see more error than today. She and I have made statements earlier on that don't fully represent what we believed but it takes time to reconcile all Father is sharing.

Shalom!
Ken

If you "was a gentile" you are STILL a gentile. You are NOT to change that. Paul nailed the lid shut on that issue in 1 Cor 7.

But as a gentile you can be "grafted in" per Romans 11 and become part of the "Commonwealth" of Israel. Eph 2.12. That is not Israel proper.

But enough of that. We are sidetracking the thread.

If you wish to discuss the 2 house theory please start another thread.

DaveW-Ohev said:

If you "was a gentile" you are STILL a gentile. You are NOT to change that. Paul nailed the lid shut on that issue in 1 Cor 7.

But as a gentile you can be "grafted in" per Romans 11 and become part of the "Commonwealth" of Israel. Eph 2.12. That is not Israel proper.

But enough of that. We are sidetracking the thread.

If you wish to discuss the 2 house theory please start another thread.

Click to expand...

The meanings of words change. In the first century "adoption" was being brought into the business of a family to do the work of that family. Now, it means bringing in an orphan and giving it a home. A heretic, according to the original Greek form of the word, was somebody who used force and in context, it would be one who would try to manipulate or force his theology on another. The heretics weren't beheaded, the ones who swung the axes and gave the orders for the axes to be swung were the heretics.

When the first English bibles came out, they often used the word "gentile." A gentile was anyone who WASN'T a Jew or Christian, he was a pagan or heathen (Webster's 1828). Thus, a "gentile Christian" is an oxymoron because you can't be a pagan and a Christian at the same time. However, the meaning of the word has changed and NOW it means "anyone who is not a Jew." That is modern, not historic.

In the end there is no covenant made with anyone but Israel. Judah and Israel become the whole house of Israel, we have 12 gates in the New Jerusalem and none are for "gentiles," a pagan/gentile does not inherit the Kingdom because a pagan serves pagan gods. My God is the God of Israel, my Messiah is the Messiah of Israel and like the strangers who also passed through water (Red Sea) and were discipled (Sinai) I too have followed the same path and am part of the family of God.

You are who brought up the Wootens in a less than positive light (lashon hara?) I didn't. I won't start a new thread and won't respond to you again. Just going to click "ignore" and do just that. There is not enough time in life for strife between brethren. God HATES that and I won't be part of it.

Brakhot and Shalom!
Ken

Ken Rank said:

I don't think that is what he is saying. Look, when you look up the word heresy in Greek in Thayer or Liddel-Scott you will find it defined like this:

Hairesis - to storm a city; to take by force

Contextually then, a heretic isn't somebody who reaches a different conclusion then the mainstream, that is the MODERN definition of that word. Historically a heretic was one who pushed his view on another. He used force or manipulation to get others to see things as he does. The heretics weren't beheaded... they were the ones with the axes who later changed the definition!

So God won't force is to do anything, that would make Him a heretic. Instead, he sets before us blessing and cursing, life and death and we are to choose life, choose the blessing... but we CAN choose the curse, we have that right. Paul is saying (and he says this 3 different times in this book by the way) that he is able to choose anything he desires but many of the things he can choose will be of no benefit. If we DO according to God's will and within His authority, we will be blessed, it will be profitable, beneficial... but if we choose to act outside of His authority and will, we won't be!

That is how I see this verse right now. I will leave the door open for a better interpretation.

Click to expand...

I agree with your understanding of the passage.

Ken Rank said:

When the first English bibles came out, they often used the word "gentile." A gentile was anyone who WASN'T a Jew or Christian, he was a pagan or heathen (Webster's 1828). Thus, a "gentile Christian" is an oxymoron because you can't be a pagan and a Christian at the same time. However, the meaning of the word has changed and NOW it means "anyone who is not a Jew." That is modern, not historic.

Click to expand...

The word is from the Latin gens/gentis meaning nation or nations. So Gentile was used to translate the Hebrew goy or goyim (pl) ALSO with the meaning nation or nations. In the Hebrew scriptures goy meant anyone from a nation OTHER than Israel; or non-Jews. I do not care that the church at some point or Noah Webster added "or christian" to the definition; it was NOT in the meaning as used in the biblical languages.

If we are to discuss biblical terms we have to use definitions from the original languages and not some translaion a thousand plus years after the fact.

Gentile means a non-Jew. PERIOD.

Ken Rank said:

In the end there is no covenant made with anyone but Israel. Judah and Israel become the whole house of Israel, we have 12 gates in the New Jerusalem and none are for "gentiles," a pagan/gentile does not inherit the Kingdom because a pagan serves pagan gods. My God is the God of Israel, my Messiah is the Messiah of Israel and like the strangers who also passed through water (Red Sea) and were discipled (Sinai) I too have followed the same path and am part of the family of God.

Click to expand...

Noah was not of Israel. His covenant still stands. Adam was not of Israel. His covenant stands as well.

Gentiles are brought into the New Covenant by way of being grafted into Israel. See Rom 11.

Ken Rank said:

You are who brought up the Wootens

Click to expand...

Only to give explaination to the one who did not know what the 2 house theory was. It was an easy key for a google search.

DaveW-Ohev said:

Noah was not of Israel. His covenant still stands. Adam was not of Israel. His covenant stands as well.

Gentiles are brought into the New Covenant by way of being grafted into Israel. See Rom 11.

Click to expand...

Dave, you believe that there are three groups in the New Covenant?

Judah
Israel
Gentiles


Wasn't that happening before, this so called grafting? Isn't that what conversion is all about? How can you be brought into a covenant without the covenant sign?

DaveW-Ohev said:

The word is from the Latin gens/gentis meaning nation or nations. So Gentile was used to translate the Hebrew goy or goyim (pl) ALSO with the meaning nation or nations. In the Hebrew scriptures goy meant anyone from a nation OTHER than Israel; or non-Jews. I do not care that the church at some point or Noah Webster added "or christian" to the definition; it was NOT in the meaning as used in the biblical languages.

If we are to discuss biblical terms we have to use definitions from the original languages and not some translaion a thousand plus years after the fact.

Gentile means a non-Jew. PERIOD.

Click to expand...

Nation as in "not Israel" and anyone who is not Israel is goy, is serving other gods. The used Webster's because the early translations used gentile and having a definition FROM THAT TIME PERIOD matters. The meaning has changed Today... PERIOD. It has.... but I will leave this at that. You are correct, we're all wrong... there is no discussion here, only strife. Take care!

Lulav said:

Dave, you believe that there are three groups in the New Covenant?

Judah
Israel
Gentiles


Wasn't that happening before, this so called grafting? Isn't that what conversion is all about? How can you be brought into a covenant without the covenant sign?

Click to expand...

The thing is, not a single person will produce a verse that says the the covenant was made with gentiles. It is made with those who were in the ethnos, in the nations, but in the end Jer. 31:31 does not include gentile UNLESS they are the companions, in which case they are still part of Israel. God calls His people Israel, a search on "my people Israel" or "Israel my people" proves this. So either a guy like me becomes a part of that family when coming to the God of that family, or... I am out of covenant and out of luck.

The Messianic Jewish position on this seems to think that my position is identity theft, that MAYBE somehow it leaves them on the outside looking in but that isn't the case at all. We are, I am... a PART of Israel, of which Messianic Jews are too.

DaveW-Ohev said:

Noah was not of Israel. His covenant still stands. Adam was not of Israel. His covenant stands as well.

Click to expand...

Noach is in the line of Abraham, who is in the line of Jacob, who is in the line of David. What was your point?

There is no covenant made with gentiles, ever. The Noachide laws are Talmudic, not Torah. Thus we reject them for the words of the only true covenant renewed by Yeshua.

Lulav said:

Dave, you believe that there are three groups in the New Covenant?

Click to expand...

What I believe or not believe needs to go to another thread.

Open Heart said:

I'm hoping maybe you all can help me with a verse that has always given me problems.

1 Corinthians 10:23 "I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive.

What exactly is Paul saying here? By not saying, "but some things are sin," is he agreeing that everything is permissible? He SEEMS to be saying that there really isn't any rules or sin anymore, just things that are stupid to do.

I can't believe it. There must be something wrong somewhere. HELP!

Click to expand...

Any time you have a question such as yours, the REASON that you haven't found the answer yourself is that you obviously QUIT reading in context.
The Bible is written in such a manner that most chapters BEGIN with a question and END with the answer. The END of each chapter basically SUMS up the chapter. Not all, but MOST.
So, you read enough to find the question, just didn't read ENOUGH to find the ANSWER.
The answer to your question is SIMPLE. We are NO LONGER bound to laws written in STONE. We are now bound to LOVE. And anything that does not conform to LOVE is contrary to the TRUTH. It is JUST as sinful today to break the covenant of LOVE as it was the laws written in stone by Moses. Paul answers the question by Stating what HE DOES DO. While FREE to do as he pleased, in order to 'overcome' we MUST do that which is expedient according to LOVE. We are IMPLORED to overcome JUST as Christ overcame. So there's the answer. Freedom is NOT permission to do things contrary to LOVE. Freedom only exists in TRUTH when we are NOT 'bound to darkness'. Not when we PRACTICE in darkness. If we practice in darkness there is NO FREEDOM. We are BOUND by darkness. We are to OVERCOME darkness through LIGHT. Taken in context, Paul STATED that while it is POSSIBLE for him to DO anything, he CHOOSES to do that which is EXPEDIENT. The freedom he is speaking of is CHOICE, not what is RIGHT or what is WRONG. Heck, YOU KNOW that you are NOT FREE in Christ to live IN SIN. And anyone that teaches us such is lying to you. You are FREE so LONG as you live IN Christ.
So Paul was simply pointing out that being capable of choosing to DO that which is WRONG doesn't make it RIGHT. It's OUR CHOICE to follow as we are LED if we allow the Spirit to GUIDE us. Paul was NOT encouraging us to DO whatever we PLEASE. He was pointing out that we are to STRIVE to DO that which is according to TRUTH. And the TRUTH is LOVE. Any and everything contrary to love is contrary to the TRUTH and is NOT expedient. Therefore we are TO CHOOSE to follow that which IS expedient.
Freedom is a concept that most 'humans' have a very difficult time understanding in TRUTH. Many believe that the ability to DO whatever they CHOOSE is freedom. But from a spiritual perspective, this couldn't be FURTHER from the TRUTH. Our purpose in following is to SERVE others, not OURSELVES. So when one comes to this understanding, such questions as you ponder are no longer mysteries but understood PERFECTLY. To BE a 'follower of Christ' we MUST FOLLOW.

Blessings,

MEC

Ken Rank said:

The thing is, not a single person will produce a verse that says the the covenant was made with gentiles. It is made with those who were in the ethnos, in the nations, but in the end Jer. 31:31 does not include gentile UNLESS they are the companions, in which case they are still part of Israel. God calls His people Israel, a search on "my people Israel" or "Israel my people" proves this. So either a guy like me becomes a part of that family when coming to the God of that family, or... I am out of covenant and out of luck.

The Messianic Jewish position on this seems to think that my position is identity theft, that MAYBE somehow it leaves them on the outside looking in but that isn't the case at all. We are, I am... a PART of Israel, of which Messianic Jews are too.

Click to expand...

This is true, there is no covenant made or remade with gentiles. Ephraim is called 'my firstborn'. (I won't derail this thread further, although I think you made a great exposition on the OP)

I'm glad though that you agree that MJ's are part of Israel, it's a great relief to me.

Lulav said:

This is true, there is no covenant made or remade with gentiles. Ephraim is called 'my firstborn'. (I won't derail this thread further, although I think you made a great exposition on the OP)

I'm glad though that you agree that MJ's are part of Israel, it's a great relief to me.

Click to expand...

Of course they are.... we have a difference of opinion on prophesy but ultimately we all have the same Father, are redeemed through the same Messiah... and theological differences on issues like this DON'T change that! We need to get passed this, find ways to express each side without it turning into a theological urinating match thus ending in hurt feelings and division. We have enough division... 40,000+ sects and denominations and an uncounted amount of home groups. We are one body with many functions and like Paul I maintain... my left toe and elbow don't look a thing a like... don't act a like... have a different function... but in the end work together for the good of the whole ONE body.

Let's get back to the OP and discuss this in another thread another day.

Blessings one and all, and David... I hope you share the sentiment above and that we can grow in mutual respect and understanding.

Open Heart said:

You are quite mistaken. Without circumcision, they have no reason to keep Mosaic law. God Fearers were the first century equivalent of Noahides today.

Click to expand...

I don't think that is true.

Cornelius who was said to be a G-d fearer did things outside the "7"

• He gave alms to the poor
• Prayed 'regularly' as in the times Jews prayed 3x a day
• He feared G-d
• He 'worked righteousness' (kept G-ds commandments)