Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[dan.pine]

In the tradition of a Christianity that I belong to we have the teaching that Christ fulfilled the law. He directly taught us various meanings that were misunderstood and He indirectly taught also through His Apostles. So we live by the fullness of the law as taught by the Lord. Is circumcision still required for men to enter into the covenent? Yes but not in the flesh as in the Old Testament but of the heart. And no longer just men but females as well. Is there a Sabbath rest in my tradition? Yes and the ultimate Sabbath rest is Christ in the tomb when He defeated Satan. So we enter into that rest, into that victory, into that sacrifice of Christ and pick up His yoke. Obviously we don’t murder but now we don’t hate either. Hopefully you see my point without needing to drag out every commandment. We don’t live by the law as the Jews did, who obviously didn’t understand the Law and were corrected many times by Christ for their misuse of it. We find no justification in the law or its rigid observation. The New Testament wasn’t written as a step by step instruction manual for Christians. Neither was the Law of Moses. In fact the 27 canonized books of the NT didn’t officially come into being as a whole work until the 4th century. There were churches who hadn’t seen all 27 books still at that time. The church survived those first centuries by the Holy Spirit and not a written manual. Centuries of extreme persecution and yet the church grew. How? The Lord who birthed the church Himself (not Paul) taught the truth to his Apostles, most of which isn’t contained in the Gospels just see St. John‘s last sentences. He then empowered His Apostles (Pentecost) and sent them into the world to pass on this teaching (literary tradition). the writings of the Apostles are mostly praises or corrections and some theology instruction for Christian communities that they founded. The situation of the Law of Moses was settled before the Apostles fell to their Martyrdom (except John of course). It had to be, because the Jews were trying to infiltrate the church and spread heresy by bringing Jews back into the bondage of the law as well as their converts. We need to reconnect with the tradition of the entire church and it’s beautifully rich history in order to understand these things. So we can stop attacking each other and making a mockery of Christ in front of nonbelievers and start spreading the love and truth of God to people who are estranged from God. Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called the Sons of God.

 

[Gary K]

In the tradition of a Christianity that I belong to we have the teaching that Christ fulfilled the law. He directly taught us various meanings that were misunderstood and He indirectly taught also through His Apostles. So we live by the fullness of the law as taught by the Lord. Is circumcision still required for men to enter into the covenent? Yes but not in the flesh as in the Old Testament but of the heart. And no longer just men but females as well. Is there a Sabbath rest in my tradition? Yes and the ultimate Sabbath rest is Christ in the tomb when He defeated Satan. So we enter into that rest, into that victory, into that sacrifice of Christ and pick up His yoke. Obviously we don’t murder but now we don’t hate either. Hopefully you see my point without needing to drag out every commandment. We don’t live by the law as the Jews did, who obviously didn’t understand the Law and were corrected many times by Christ for their misuse of it. We find no justification in the law or its rigid observation. The New Testament wasn’t written as a step by step instruction manual for Christians. Neither was the Law of Moses. In fact the 27 canonized books of the NT didn’t officially come into being as a whole work until the 4th century. There were churches who hadn’t seen all 27 books still at that time. The church survived those first centuries by the Holy Spirit and not a written manual. Centuries of extreme persecution and yet the church grew. How? The Lord who birthed the church Himself (not Paul) taught the truth to his Apostles, most of which isn’t contained in the Gospels just see St. John‘s last sentences. He then empowered His Apostles (Pentecost) and sent them into the world to pass on this teaching (literary tradition). the writings of the Apostles are mostly praises or corrections and some theology instruction for Christian communities that they founded. The situation of the Law of Moses was settled before the Apostles fell to their Martyrdom (except John of course). It had to be, because the Jews were trying to infiltrate the church and spread heresy by bringing Jews back into the bondage of the law as well as their converts. We need to reconnect with the tradition of the entire church and it’s beautifully rich history in order to understand these things. So we can stop attacking each other and making a mockery of Christ in front of nonbelievers and start spreading the love and truth of God to people who are estranged from God. Blessed are the Peacemakers for they shall be called the Sons of God.

The Jews understood the law very well. However, they were hypocrites as Jesus called them that 14 times in the book of Matthew. A hypocrite. as you know, pretends to be one person when in actuality they are someone else.

 

[Guojing]

Thanks for asking, I should have included the reference.

Phil. 3:1 Finally, my brethren, (This would be the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile that Paul, according to the Vision of the Christ, taught)

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

How could the "WE" here not include the Gentiles Paul taught according to the Vision given him by the very Christ, who worship God in the Spirit and have no confidence in the Flesh to whom God Himself gave His Holy Spirit and put no difference between them and the Apostles?

I respect your knowledge of scripture, if you think I am in error here, please show me where my thinking went wrong.

Hope this helps.

So basically, you do not agree that, every time the term "brethren" appear in scripture, whether said by Jesus, James, Peter, John, Paul, it can only be referring to the circumcision, and not gentiles.

I won't say you are in error, its more like our basic axiom, starting point differs.

Since we start from different axioms, our resulting interpretation will naturally diverge.

I was taught this axiom, that brethren in scripture only refers to Jews, from John Hastings, here

If anyone here can present a convincing case of scripture ever calling a uncircumcised gentile believer as "brethren", I am prepared to change my mind about this.

 

[Gary K]

So basically, you do not agree that, every time the term "brethren" appear in scripture, whether said by Jesus, James, Peter, John, Paul, it can only be referring to the circumcision, and not gentiles.

I won't say you are in error, its more like our basic axiom, starting point differs.

Since we start from different axioms, our resulting interpretation will naturally diverge.

I was taught this axiom, that brethren in scripture only refers to Jews, from John Hastings, here

If anyone here can present a convincing case of scripture ever calling a uncircumcised gentile believer as "brethren", I am prepared to change my mind about this.

I gave you several texts on the page before this one and you haven't commented on them.

 

[Guojing]

So, you will ignore the fact that I didn't write the letter to the Phillippians, but Paul did and he called we Gentiles brethren.







There are a lot more instances of Paul writing to the Gentile churches he started and calling them brethren. It seems you know far less scripture than you think.

Thanks, let me verify them first with the preacher.

But if you are correct, are you saying that, because of those examples, anytime you encounter the term brethren, you would automatically see it as applying to both Jews and Gentile believers in the Body of Christ as well, for example in the epistles of James and Peter?

 

[Studyman]

So basically, you do not agree that, every time the term "brethren" appear in scripture, whether said by Jesus, James, Peter, John, Paul, it can only be referring to the circumcision, and not gentiles.

No my friend, you are moving the bar here. I was responding to your statement "God's people, my people, in scripture always refers to the nation of Israel."

To which I responded with "And Paul does say about the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile, "We are the Circumcision". I'm just not sure how you define "Nation of Israel".

You replied with "I am curious, where is the KJV scripture that says the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile, "We are the Circumcision"? You claimed this but provided no reference."

Now I posted the evidence you asked for. My evidence didn't come from Gamaliel, or Calvin or the Pope, or Hastings. What I provided was Biblical Support, it seems there is a lot, where Paul considered the Spiritual "Nation of Israel" the same way that the God of Abraham considered the Nation of Israel.

Lev. 19: 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you "as one born among you", and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

So you asked me a question and I answered it with the Scriptures you asked for. You didn't ask, "Does every time the word "Brethren" is used in Scriptures, mean the "Nation of Israel". And if you had asked this, I would have also asked. "How are you defining "Nation of Israel".

I won't say you are in error, its more like our basic axiom, starting point differs.

Since we start from different axioms, our resulting interpretation will naturally diverge.

I was taught this axiom, that brethren in scripture only refers to Jews, from John Hastings, here

If anyone here can present a convincing case of scripture ever calling a uncircumcised gentile believer as "brethren", I am prepared to change my mind about this.

This is a different question than the one you asked me, and that I responded to. So I would need some clarification for this question as well. When you say "Uncircumcised gentile believer", are you speaking to the circumcision the Pharisees promoted, "which is outward in the flesh:" or the circumcision Paul promoted, which is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

And one more, if you would be so kind.


When Paul said "WE are the Circumcision" in Philippians, where is your Scriptural Evidence in the KJV, that Paul is excluding from the "WE", repentant Gentiles "Who have turned to God"?

And if it is in your mind to do so, it would be helpful if you would answer my first question as well, "How do you define the Nation of Israel" in Paul's Time? Would this include non-Jews according to the flesh, who "wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;? Or are you saying there is a wall of separation in the Body of Christ, between men with Jewish DNA and men with Non-Jewish DNA that Paul instructed?

What a good discussion to have, to help cut through all the noise.

I thank you for it.

 

[Guojing]

No my friend, you are moving the bar here. I was responding to your statement "God's people, my people, in scripture always refers to the nation of Israel."

To which I responded with "And Paul does say about the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile, "We are the Circumcision". I'm just not sure how you define "Nation of Israel".

You replied with "I am curious, where is the KJV scripture that says the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile, "We are the Circumcision"? You claimed this but provided no reference."

Now I posted the evidence you asked for. My evidence didn't come from Gamaliel, or Calvin or the Pope, or Hastings. What I provided was Biblical Support, it seems there is a lot, where Paul considered the Spiritual "Nation of Israel" the same way that the God of Abraham considered the Nation of Israel.

Lev. 19: 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you "as one born among you", and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

So you asked me a question and I answered it with the Scriptures you asked for. You didn't ask, "Does every time the word "Brethren" is used in Scriptures, mean the "Nation of Israel". And if you had asked this, I would have also asked. "How are you defining "Nation of Israel".




This is a different question than the one you asked me, and that I responded to. So I would need some clarification for this question as well. When you say "Uncircumcised gentile believer", are you speaking to the circumcision the Pharisees promoted, "which is outward in the flesh:" or the circumcision Paul promoted, which is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

And one more, if you would be so kind.


When Paul said "WE are the Circumcision" in Philippians, where is your Scriptural Evidence in the KJV, that Paul is excluding from the "WE", repentant Gentiles "Who have turned to God"?

And if it is in your mind to do so, it would be helpful if you would answer my first question as well, "How do you define the Nation of Israel" in Paul's Time? Would this include non-Jews according to the flesh, who "wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;? Or are you saying there is a wall of separation in the Body of Christ, between men with Jewish DNA and men with Non-Jewish DNA that Paul instructed?

What a good discussion to have, to help cut through all the noise.

I thank you for it.

Actually I directed the first question to another, not to you.

As for the 2nd question, for me, the nation of Israel is of the physical circumcised Jews, the 12 tribes of Israel, so it will not include us in the Body of Christ.

Hope that clarifies.

 

[Studyman]

Thanks, let me verify them first with the preacher.

But if you are correct, are you saying that, because of those examples, anytime you encounter the term brethren, you would automatically see it as applying to both Jews and Gentile believers in the Body of Christ as well, for example in the epistles of James and Peter?

If I may, there seems to be some confusion here. There are times when Paul called the children of the devil, those who persecuted the church of God and wasted it, those Jews who murdered innocent men for simply telling the Truth, who full well rejected the commandments of God by their own religious traditions "Brethren". And he also called fellow believers "Brethren". Does every time the word "Brethren" is used it is speaking to repentant Jews and Gentiles in the "Church of God" AKA the "Body of Christ"? Absolutely not. I don't think anyone has ever said that.

But it does seem that "EVERY" time the term "Body of Christ" is used, it refers to both repentant Jews and repentant Gentiles. If Paul is an Elder of the Body of Christ, and says "we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." I don't understand how you can say he is only speaking to men who were born with Jewish DNA.

 

[Studyman]

Actually I directed the first question to another, not to you.

As for the 2nd question, for me, the nation of Israel is of the physical circumcised Jews, the 12 tribes of Israel, so it will not include us in the Body of Christ.

Hope that clarifies.

Thank you. Yes it does, it explains everything.

 

[Guojing]

If I may, there seems to be some confusion here. There are times when Paul called the children of the devil, those who persecuted the church of God and wasted it, those Jews who murdered innocent men for simply telling the Truth, who full well rejected the commandments of God by their own religious traditions "Brethren". And he also called fellow believers "Brethren". Does every time the word "Brethren" is used it is speaking to repentant Jews and Gentiles in the "Church of God" AKA the "Body of Christ"? Absolutely not. I don't think anyone has ever said that.

As I said, that question was directed to another.

But since you chose to answer, would you agree that James was only writing to circumcised Jews, in his epistle, given James 1:1?

Likewise the author of Hebrews and Peter only wrote to circumcised Jews?

 

[Gary K]

Thanks, let me verify them first with the preacher.

But if you are correct, are you saying that, because of those examples, anytime you encounter the term brethren, you would automatically see it as applying to both Jews and Gentile believers in the Body of Christ as well, for example in the epistles of James and Peter?

No. Sometimes to one, sometimes to another, and sometimes to both at the same time. Like when Paul wrote to the Gentile church he started and included himself and them in "we". He saw them as brothers in Christ.

He could not have done the successful missionary work he did for decades if he didn't see them as complete equals in Christ. They would have seen the hypocrisy of him thinking he was different/better than they were very quickly and rejected his and his message. A person cannot hide their inner racism. It comes out whether or not they want it to.

 

[dan.pine]

The physical Nation of Israel in the OT was talking directly to the physical Nation as well as prophetically to the Nation of Israel that was to come, namely the church and body of Jesus Christ. I believe it was a Torah law that required a prophet to be proven as true or be killed as a false prophet. Can’t remember where I read it exactly. So the prophecy had a double meaning usually, ie the abomination that causes desolation. In the OT prophets it becomes more and more clear that the new nation would include gentiles. Now a holistic approach can be used here too. The children of Abraham held in bondage to the Egyptian Pharaoh represents the church being freed from sin. The Red Sea represented baptism. The giving of the law on Pentecost represented the full empowerment via the descent of the Spirit. Life in the desert was the struggle we have in fighting the passions and the flesh, etc. St Paul goes through son great lengths to explain that a Jew isnt a Jew just because of blood line but because of faith in Christ. The danger here would be overanalyzing individual scriptures and “missing the forest from the trees”. At the end of the day all of the NT is directed at the church. And all of the teachings of the Apostles came from Jesus. And those teaches are supposed to be exactly the same for everyone because God is God and He doesn’t change and mold Himself into different forms to appease different people. There’s One God and One Way. If Hebrews wasn’t meant for the Gentile Church then why is it in the NT to begin with? Same question for any book. The NT was canonized by a worldwide council of bishops based on whether or not the letters agreed with the Holy Tradition of God or not. Which means every book of the NT is for the church as a whole.

 

[Gary K]

The physical Nation of Israel in the OT was talking directly to the physical Nation as well as prophetically to the Nation of Israel that was to come, namely the church and body of Jesus Christ. I believe it was a Torah law that required a prophet to be proven as true or be killed as a false prophet. Can’t remember where I read it exactly. So the prophecy had a double meaning usually, ie the abomination that causes desolation. In the OT prophets it becomes more and more clear that the new nation would include gentiles. Now a holistic approach can be used here too. The children of Abraham held in bondage to the Egyptian Pharaoh represents the church being freed from sin. The Red Sea represented baptism. The giving of the law on Pentecost represented the full empowerment via the descent of the Spirit. Life in the desert was the struggle we have in fighting the passions and the flesh, etc. St Paul goes through son great lengths to explain that a Jew isnt a Jew just because of blood line but because of faith in Christ. The danger here would be overanalyzing individual scriptures and “missing the forest from the trees”. At the end of the day all of the NT is directed at the church. And all of the teachings of the Apostles came from Jesus. And those teaches are supposed to be exactly the same for everyone because God is God and He doesn’t change and mold Himself into different forms to appease different people. There’s One God and One Way. If Hebrews wasn’t meant for the Gentile Church then why is it in the NT to begin with? Same question for any book. The NT was canonized by a worldwide council of bishops based on whether or not the letters agreed with the Holy Tradition of God or not. Which means every book of the NT is for the church as a whole.

The statement is about how to recognize a true prophet.

Isa_8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Deu 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

 

[Doran]

The Jews understood the law very well. However, they were hypocrites as Jesus called them that 14 times in the book of Matthew. A hypocrite. as you know, pretends to be one person when in actuality they are someone else.

Really? Have you never read:

Rom 3:10-18
10 As it is written:

"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
13 "Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."?
NIV

Paul is quoting from or alluding to various OT passages in the above passage, so what makes you think that the above passage excludes the Jewish nation -- an apostate nation that was so full of MISUNDERSTANDINGS that that it was driven from its Land three times! It was a nation that was so spiritually clueless to spiritual truth (including the Law, cp. Rom 7:14) that Jesus said the kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to another nation! And, yet, this is the nation that you say understood the Law so well? How is it possible that the unspiritual, i.e. the spiritually dead understand spiritual truth?

 

[Gary K]

Really? Have you never read:

Rom 3:10-18
10 As it is written:

"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
13 "Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."?
NIV

Paul is quoting from or alluding to various OT passages in the above passage, so what makes you think that the above passage excludes the Jewish nation -- an apostate nation that was so full of MISUNDERSTANDINGS that that it was driven from its Land three times! It was a nation that was so spiritually clueless to spiritual truth (including the Law, cp. Rom 7:14) that Jesus said the kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to another nation! And, yet, this is the nation that you say understood the Law so well? How is it possible that the unspiritual, i.e. the spiritually dead understand spiritual truth?

Do you not believe the words of Jesus? If they did not understand scripture how could He call them hypocrites. as He was not a liar?

 

[Guojing]

No. Sometimes to one, sometimes to another, and sometimes to both at the same time. Like when Paul wrote to the Gentile church he started and included himself and them in "we". He saw them as brothers in Christ.

He could not have done the successful missionary work he did for decades if he didn't see them as complete equals in Christ. They would have seen the hypocrisy of him thinking he was different/better than they were very quickly and rejected his and his message. A person cannot hide their inner racism. It comes out whether or not they want it to.

How about this claim "In the book of Romans, brethren always refer to Roman Jews?"

Would you object to that?

 

[Gary K]

How about this claim "In the book of Romans, brethren always refer to Roman Jews?"

Would you object to that?

Of course, as I gave a list of texts refuting such a claim.

 

[Studyman]

How about this claim "In the book of Romans, brethren always refer to Roman Jews?"

Would you object to that?

It seems prudent to at least acknowledge and hopefully accept what Paul actually teaches in Romans pertaining to Jews and Gentiles. And also what Paul himself said the Christ instructed him to preach in a "heavenly vision" in Acts. 26: 19, 20.

Romans 2: 24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, ( The "You" here would be Jews "Outwardly", Yes?) as it is written.

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, (Born a Non-Jew according to DNA) if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

So then, men who keep the Laws of God, like Abraham, are Spiritual Jews, just as if they were born among the people, Like Moses said in Lev. 19.

But men who full well reject God's Commandments, so they can promote their own manmade doctrines and traditions, are considered pagan, or unrepentant gentiles and will be rewarded with God's Wrath.

Paul understood this because he believed all that is written in the Law and Prophets.

Jer. 9: 23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:

24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

 

[Guojing]

Of course, as I gave a list of texts refuting such a claim.

Your list did not have any scripture passages from the book of Romans.

 

[Guojing]

It seems prudent to at least acknowledge and hopefully accept what Paul actually teaches in Romans pertaining to Jews and Gentiles. And also what Paul himself said the Christ instructed him to preach in a "heavenly vision" in Acts. 26: 19, 20.

So at the end, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my claim?