Body of Christ (Church) vs. Israel

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes, and I am trying to find in Josephus where it talks about this. Judges which are found to not "QUALIFY", I am sure do not maintain their office. They are just as guilty as a false witness. Heck, the rulers were the witnesses against him. It was not juist Christ himself, John the baptist and his testimony of Christ was ignored by the same as well.

On the issue - you already know where I stand on the subject of judges (as shared earlier in #33 ,#46 and #53 on the ways the priesthood was corrupt and Yeshua in many ways did things radically different in how he came). My own understanding is that - despite how corrupt the system was and the fact that Yeshua was basically judged in a Kangeroo Court where MULTIPLE violations of the Law went down ( more shared here on Arrest & 1st Trial, here on the 2nd Trial, here on the The 3rd and 4th Trial, and here on the 5th Trial ) - they were still in leadership...and Yeshua honored the position even when they proved they did not deserve it so as to make a point. He already said in Matthew 23 for others to respect those who sat in Moses's seat - and yet warned directly against doing as they do since it was highly corrupt.

It's very much similar to what David experienced in 1 Samuel 26 - and other times besides that. For he was the one the Lord anointed to be King over Israel - and yet he was not in the office at the time of King Saul...and refused to lay a hand on him even if Saul was corrupt. Why? Because he respected the office - and knew it was for the Lord to take out Saul in His own time (which the Lord did later ).

1 Samuel 24:6
He said to his men, “The Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, or lift my hand against him; for he is the anointed of the Lord.”
1 Samuel 24:5-7 / 1 Samuel 24

1 Samuel 26:10-12 / 1 Samuel 26
Abishai said to David, “Today God has delivered your enemy into your hands. Now let me pin him to the ground with one thrust of my spear; I won’t strike him twice.”

9 But David said to Abishai, “Don’t destroy him! Who can lay a hand on the Lord’s anointed and be guiltless? 10 As surely as the Lord lives,” he said, “the Lord himself will strike him; either his time will come and he will die, or he will go into battle and perish. 11But the Lord forbid that I should lay a hand on the Lord’s anointed. Now get the spear and water jug that are near his head, and let’s go.”

2 Samuel 2
“He asked me, ‘Who are you?’
“‘An Amalekite,’ I answered.

9 “Then he said to me, ‘Stand over me and kill me! I am in the throes of death, but I’m still alive.’

10 “So I stood over him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord.”

11 Then David and all the men with him took hold of their clothes and tore them. 12 They mourned and wept and fasted till evening for Saul and his son Jonathan, and for the army of the Lord and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.13 David said to the young man who brought him the report, “Where are you from?”
“I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite,” he answered. 14 David asked him, “Why were you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?”

15 Then David called one of his men and said, “Go, strike him down!” So he struck him down, and he died. 16 For David had said to him, “Your blood be on your own head. Your own mouth testified against you when you said, ‘I killed the Lord’s anointed.’”

​

​

We can even see the same principle in the life of David himself - as the man committed ADULTERY and MURDER/conspiracy (as seen in II Samuel 11/(II Samuel 11:26-27). ) - both of which were crimes worthy of death in the Mosaic Code. And yet he was not taken out. Why? Because of the fact that it was the office he was in - and the Lord would pronounce judgement on him. ..and the Lord did just that in severe ways - his family forever suffering and experiencing the same things He allowed to happen by his own hands.


Prior to all of this a couple of decades, we have the example of Eli and his sons. His priesthood was forever cut off because of how he let his sons run WILD in the Priesthood - from eating meat not for them during sacrifices to sleeping with the women in the temple ( 1 Samuel 2 ). And rather than restraining them, he tolerated it. Samuel was destined by the Lord to be the Prophet - but he did not have permission to take out Eli. That was a position for the Lord - and the Lord did just that later on in 1 Samuel 4:3 ( more shared here in #19, #20 and #24 ) - even though Samuel had already been told by the Lord what would happen to Eli and Eli was told by Samuel in I Samuel 3:13.

As it is, with Yeshua, the same principle applies - for he was dealing with corrupt men who had no business doing as they did - and yet even as He was righteous, He knew that He'd judge them later on - and it HAD to go down as it did because it was all by God's Hand.

Lets consider Christ and the Ressurection, seeing that sinful acts were necessary for Christ to die (i.e. "betrayal", "accusation", "trial", "beatings", etc) and were apart of God's plan...yet God still made clear that even with it being apart of His Sovereign plan the people chose freely/were responsible. That's something worth pausing on. One must naturally ask the question of whether or not the Resurrection/The Death of Christ involved men choosing out of their own free-will to help make it happen WITHOUT THE LORD KNOWING the outcome of it all or whether it was the Lord divinely setting it up to where men's hearts were influenced toward a certain course of action in crucifying the Messiah, begging the question of if those men doing so were ever fully in control or aware......

Acts 4:11
You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One.[a]'[b] 27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people[c] of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Acts 2:23 Acts 2:4
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him

John 11:49-51 / John 11
Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53So from that day on they plotted to take his life
​

Christ was not a victim of circumstances.....and his death wasn't the result of circumstances, caprice, chance, fortune or luck. It was all a matter of the Lord being in control. From here, however, thoughts naturally come up of whether or not people like Judas chose to betray Christ or whether it was already set up for him to take the fall. And the same with those who chose to murder the SOn of God. On the aspect of man's will being affected for the purposes of the Cross, it'd make perfect sense as to why the Son of Man had such an ability to forgive them even when they were sinning against him--for to a significant degree, they REally didn't know what they were doing....and had they knew the full ramifications of it, they'd probably would've stopped--just as it is with nearly all sinful activities where people willfully choose sin and yet are not really aware of the full ramifications of it when in the process of committining.

Luke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
Luke 23:33-35 (in Context) Luke 23 (
​

__________________

 

[annier]

[/indent][/indent]While it is clear for not just the judges, but for Kings, and all of the people, including Christians and Messianics, we are to judge righteously. We are all admonished to do this. But the truth is, there is no Mosaic law which disqualifies a judge from their office. And because of the office, the judges were basically to be obeyed.

While there is no method for disqualifying a person from holding the office of judge (due to bad judgements), since the judges are appointed, ideally, a new judge would be appointed in their place once a judge if found to be consistently corrupt and make consistently unrighteous judgements.

So, the gospels could not show the judges as disqualified as there is no such method of disqualification. The purpose of the gospels is as a legal witness (per the Mosaic law and for future witness to all people) to show Yeshua is the Messiah.

Bad Judgements? BIAS, bribery, presenting false witnesses? That is more than making a bad judgement Qnts. That is a judge not having the qualifications in which a JUDGE IS INSTALLED IN OFFICE.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeshua said to obey those that sit in Moses Seat. Whether they were crooked or not is irrelevant. Yeshua gave them authority at the time.

The principle of "Respect the Office" and knowing that the Lord still works through it is big principle within Judaic thought. And it is fascianting to see the ways that even those who harrassed the Messiah were still used by the Lord to do Divine things.

John 11:45-52

The Plot to Kill Jesus
45Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

"What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place[a] and our nation."

49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.


​

The phrase "die for the people" invokes the memory of the Maccabean martyrs (II Macc, 7:37-38). With a typical Johannine double meaning, Caiaphas's pronouncement anticipates Jesus's substitutionary atonement. IMHO, the man's actions do not mean that Caiaphas — like one who was mad, or out of his senses — uttered what he did not understand. For he spoke what was his own opinion. Rather, a higher impulse guided his tongue, because God intended that he should make known, by his mouth, something higher than what occurred to his mind. What Caiaphas said at that time was done in 2 senses.....one which dealt with the wicked design of putting Christ to death, which he had conceived in his mind...and the other concerning what God had in mind when it came to how the Lord wanted Christ to die ( Acts 2:22-24 ), thus making Caiphas's words a prediction. Its similar to what occurred when God intended to bless his people by the mouth of Balaam, on whom he had bestowed the spirit of prophecy...even though Balaam's intentions were to curse (Numbers 22-25).

It is highly significant to consider Caiphas's words in light of how it makes clear that he was HIGH priest that year when he stated what he did. As said best by Oskar Skarsaune in his book In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity when speaking on the ways the priesthood was set up, "The Prophetic Gift Folowed the Office - not the man."

To see the reality of how the offices others occupied were respected by the Lord - even in spite of corruption and showing a lack of any qualification for that office - is a principle in showing how the Lord can still use others who have a legal position even though they lack the morality to do the Legal job as commanded.

It all goes back to what happened during Hannukah's foundations. There was provision of God for his zealous priests who were eager to cleanse the Bet HaMikdash, the Holy Temple, from defilement and the spiritual disease of a worldly king who desired to make the Jews worship false gods. The Maccabean priests valiantly fought against incredible odds to reclaim the Temple and purify it from the enemy. The holy oil for the Temple menorah burned for eight days when there was only enough for one. Sadly, this zealous priestly family, who were part of this miraculous event, soon became the worldly oppressors who defiled Temple and office of High Priest with their lust for power and wealth. They forgot the LORD and the miracle of their victory.

There was excellent discussion on the issue (including the ways that Judaism after/during the Maccabean Revolt managed to find ways of utilizing Hellenization to their advantage by making it fit a Judaic perspective) as seen in the book entitled In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity. The Maccabean fighters, who eventually established the Hasmonean kingdom, were themselves influenced deeply by Hellenism - with later generations finding many positive benefits from it as a result (more shared here /here). Of course, other negatives occurred as well. With Hannakuh, In the battle against Hellenism invaiding the Temple, there was a major victory at restoring Torah instruction to Temple services. The success of the victory did seem to come at the expense of some blessings....and other things that the other nations around them supported.


The time of the Maccabees did ALOT to change matters of law historically and one has to study that in-depth to understand how much stuff went out the window when Jewish nationalism took over and the high priesthood was replaced at large. And with the priesthood already being significantly altered even though they still used Moses/the Law to justify a lot of things they condoned as if it was always like that, more was recently discussed elsewhere on the issue of why Yeshua and others came on the scene as they did.


As said before:

He didn't need man to declare him as King (in fact when they tried to make him king he refused and walked away) and neither did he need man to make him a High Priest. He submitted to it because his father had decreed that King and Priest had to be set apart and that John's function was to point him out and declare him as G_d's chosen one. Therefore, Yeshua submitted to John, though, as John said, it should be the other way round.

Spot on...as Yeshua was affirmed by the Lord himself...although it makes sense that John would declare Yeshua as He was since John was also descended from a Levitical line - and perhaps one of the few who actually had any real right to the priesthood after the Hasmonean Dynasty messed things up and set up their own, Roman enforced priesthood with no connection to the Levitical line/ Zadokites. The book "In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity" did an awesome job covering the issue - and for more, one can go here or here.

Exactly - it couldn't be any old priest from those appointed by Herod's choice. John was miraculously born for the purpose of declaring who the son of G_d was - it would make sense, therefore, for G_d to use him in this very public anointing of Yeshua to his Kingly and Priestly role and so to fulfill the prophecies. Many think John was the High Priest of the true Temple - in Qumran - and so Yeshua was properly anointed according to the Law. This links in with his gown not being torn too - Leviticus 10, I think it is, that a priest who tears his gown shall die, so his gown was not torn by the soldiers. It was a part of acknowledging his Priesthood, just as the Charge, above his head on the cross, acknowledged his Kingship as well as his G_dly role as seen in Philippians.

There are lots more connections if his 'baptism' is in fact an anointing.

I do take it significant seeing the location that John lived in (Desert) and the clothing style he utilized - for as argued elsewhere (here, here and here), there were other legitimate groups within Judaism who were not mentioned in the scriptures/had bounced out long before Yeshua arrived on the scene...and yet their actions had a signfiicant effect in how others saw the Temple era. Specifically, in order to break away from the corruption in Jerusalem in the priesthood and be ready for the Lord, the Essenes broke away and went into the wilderness - and numerous scholars have noted their community practices and language (from their use of the term "The Way" to having a commune/communal lifestyle, their rites with baptism/water and other things) were directly present in the NT community of believers - and it has been noted that John himself probably went out to the Essene community in the wilderness/lived there for a time. His dress style was similar to what many of them (in a monastic spirit) dressed due to their focus/ascetic practices. Additionally, although not a dominant group in Jerusalem, they were hated by the other groups in Jerusalem -especially the priesthood - due to their actions being somewhat "outside the lines of jurisdiction." More has been shared on the issue elsewhere, as shared here/here and here/here and here.



With the Levitical priesthood dynamic, it is also interesting to see that Mary - a cousin of Elizabeth (a daughter of Aaron) - would also have had Levitical background...and thus, even apart from John, Yeshua would have had legal rights to the Levitical priesthood in addition to what he had from his father Joseph (of Judah/David's kingship).

It was a highly political scene. As seen in John 11:45-57, the text makes clear that the Chief Priests and the Pharisees were afraid of the their nation being taken away due to the actions of Christ. And the phrase "Our place" almost certainly refers to the temple (Acts 6:13-14, Acts 21:28). The phrase "The romans will come and take away both our place and our nation" may refer to the feared removal of the Jews' semiautonomous status by the Romans (1 Macc. 5:19). Ironically, what the Sanhedrin sought to prevent by killing Jesus still came to pass when the Romans razed the temple and captured Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Concerning who the Chief Priests are---as referenced in John 11 as well as Luke 9:21-22, Luke 22:52 and Luke 22:54-71 and Matthew 26:57-67---the "chief priests" are not the high priests but rather members of the most prominent priestly families.

As it concerns the Jewish high court, it consisted of 71 members----70 elders according to the pattern of Numbers 11:16 plus the high priest as presiding officer. It was dominated by the priestly Sadducees with a Pharisaic minority, represented mainly by the scribes (lawyers) of the court. This is what was referenced in John 7:45-51 when an attempt was made to arrest Jesus. Under the Roman procurators, three wealthy priestly families largely controlled the extremely important position of high priest. Annas was the patriarch of one of these powerful families of high priest (Acts 4:6). Annas was designated as the high priest (much like a U.S President, as high priests seemed to have retained their title for life). He had served in that role earlier (A.D. 6-15) and was the controlling figure in the high-priestly circle, which may also explain why he is given the title in Acts 4:6. His son-in-law Caiaphas was the official high priest at this time, serving A.D. 18-36, and Anna's son John would serve in that role later (36-37). Caiphas also presided over the Sanhedrin during the time of Christ's trial.....as he managed to retain control of the high priesthood gor nearly 18years (c.A.D. 18-36)----Longer than anyone else in the first century (cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.35, 95). He was certainly the high priest during Jesus' ministry, although he also consulted frequently with his father-in-law Annas (John 18:13, Luke 3:2).

There were definately cases of class warfare/favoritism within the priesthood--and those without power often had to live on the sidelines or be outsted. It's one of the reasons (coupled with the corruption of the priesthood) why many Essenes had left Jerusalem and chose to live in the Desert..

And yet despite all of the mess that went on, it seems the Lord honored the Offices those men were in and used them to establish certain purposes for Israel

 

[Qnts2]

Bad Judgements? BIAS, bribery, presenting false witnesses? That is more than making a bad judgement Qnts. That is a judge not having the qualifications in which a JUDGE IS INSTALLED IN OFFICE.

You can not judge if the judge was qualified or not at the time he was installed in office.

Now let's look at the story:

First, let me say that there were some things done which were invalid, such as the first trial being held at night, but the trial recorded in Matthew 26 is the trial during the daytime.

Yeshua could have easily called witnesses to counter any bad testimony. He did not call any witnesses on His behalf.

Yeshua did not speak until ordered to by the High Priest, then He obeyed the High Priest.

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

So, everyone in the room witnessed what Jesus said. There was no need of witnesses, true or false. And they judged based on Yeshua's statement that He would sit at the right hand of power, making Himself equivalent with God.

No person is equivalent to God but only God Himself, so Jesus either had to be God or was indeed blaspheming.

Truthfully, since Yeshua called no witnesses to counter any false witnesses but remained silent, and then when ordered to speak, said the one thing which almost guaranteed a guilty sentence, but He knew He was to be convicted and die, so He was willingly laying down His life, being lead like a sheep to slaughter.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Jesus said that no one could take His life. The judges, while ruling him guilty, could not take Yeshua's life, unless Yeshua permitted it. Since the plan was for Yeshua to be crucified since the foundation of the world, it has always been the plan that the people who played the role in His crucifixion (judges, Roman soldiers, Roman rulers, etc) were to do that, as it was a part of Gods plan.

So, unless the individual judges later repented and came to believe on Yeshua, they were lost and facing the judgement of God. They are guilty of unbelief, just as everyone who rejects that Yeshua is Messiah. But, we do not know if any came to believe or not, in which case, they are not just forgiven, but are now saints, and our brothers in the Lord.

Interestingly enough, I was amazed to discover years ago that there was a lot of findings that pointed out the fact that some of the people who persecuted Yeshua possibly became saved. Caiphas being one of them notably (and there've been some good discussions elsewhere). He is an histrorical figure for whom much evidence has been found.

• MYSTAGOGY: Ossuary Belonging to a Daughter of the Caiaphas Family of High Priests Discovered

There is debate on the validity of some of the things deemed to be "evidence" , of course - some seeing it more so as sensationalism, as shared here.
Also, as it concerns others like Pilate's wife (who had a bad dream which she told Pilate - the one she said inspired her to tell Pilate not to do anything to Jesus)....well it turns out she actually became a Powerhouse believer in the Kingdom. Pontius Pilate's wife s unnamed in the New Testament, where she appears a single time in the Gospel of Matthew

Matt. 27:17-19
When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” For he knew that because of envy they had delivered Him up. And while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him.”
​

Alternate Christian traditions have referred to her as Saint Procula (also pelled Proculla or Procla) or Saint Claudia, and the combinations Claudia Procles and Claudia Procula have been used. Apparently, there was a suggestion that Paul's last letter to Timothy (II Timothy 4:21) that the Claudia he alludes to may be Pilate's wife (more shared here /here and here) - and the Ethiopian Orthodox/Eastern Orthodox celebrate her life in the church every year - and if his wife became a believer, it's likely that Pilate came along as well....especially seeing all the things he later sought to do in order to free Jesus (more discussed here) and the ways early Church history showed many noting where Pilate became a believer in their midst.

For more:

• How Pilate Became a Saint - BAS Online Archive
• 
  St. Pontius Pilate Day? - OrthodoxChristianity
  

 

[annier]

You can not judge if the judge was qualified or not at the time he was installed in office.

Now let's look at the story:

First, let me say that there were some things done which were invalid, such as the first trial being held at night, but the trial recorded in Matthew 26 is the trial during the daytime.

Yeshua could have easily called witnesses to counter any bad testimony. He did not call any witnesses on His behalf.

Yeshua did not speak until ordered to by the High Priest, then He obeyed the High Priest.

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66 what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

So, everyone in the room witnessed what Jesus said. There was no need of witnesses, true or false. And they judged based on Yeshua's statement that He would sit at the right hand of power, making Himself equivalent with God.

No person is equivalent to God but only God Himself, so Jesus either had to be God or was indeed blaspheming.

Truthfully, since Yeshua called no witnesses to counter any false witnesses but remained silent, and then when ordered to speak, said the one thing which almost guaranteed a guilty sentence, but He knew He was to be convicted and die, so He was willingly laying down His life, being lead like a sheep to slaughter.

You are not taking into account several points of the Gospel. BIAS, bribery, false witnesses.
These were judges all with a predisposed desire.....

Christ DID HAVE WITNESS, He needed not the testimony of man.

1. JOHN THE BAPTIST. God's own prophet sent for testimony of him.

Lu 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

Mt 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

2. His works testified of him.
Jo 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.
22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Not only that but so many things about his works, MIGHTY WORKS, that generation had seen
Nations of old having been destroyed would have repented having seen them.
Others holy men of old, and prophets longed to see those days...of his works.

I just cannot believe the upholding of this generation of Judges, as QUALIFIED to judge this case. And the simple idea of making an unjust judgment. They purposely SET UP an unjust judgment. Having rejected testimony of him in the beginning of the Gospels. They rejected the testimony of (GOD) HIS WORKS, for to charge him with BLASPHEMY!

The entire Gospels are a witness to their unjust bias. From John's baptism, on. I have nothing further to say here.

 

[Ashlantal]

Ephesians 2:8-13 (CJB)

8 For you have been delivered by grace through trusting, and even this is not your accomplishment but God’s gift. 9 You were not delivered by your own actions; therefore no one should boast. 10 For we are of God’s making, created in union with the Messiah Yeshua for a life of good actions already prepared by God for us to do.

11 Therefore, remember your former state: you Gentiles by birth — called the Uncircumcised by those who, merely because of an operation on their flesh, are called the Circumcised — 12 at that time had no Messiah. You were estranged from the national life of Isra’el. You were foreigners to the covenants embodying God’s promise. You were in this world without hope and without God.

13 But now, you who were once far off have been brought near through the shedding of the Messiah’s blood.


Hmm , this seems to indicate that we (Gentiles) have been grafted into spiritual Israel (Children of Abraham) upon accepting Christ .

 

[macher]

Hmm , this seems to indicate that we (Gentiles) have been grafted into spiritual Israel (Children of Abraham) upon accepting Christ .

Right spiritually speaking.

 

[Ashlantal]

Right spiritually speaking.

So I see we've come to the same conclusion . I mean it's pretty plainly outlined in scripture , that's why I'm confused as to why many others disagree .

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Ephesians 2:8-13 (CJB)

8 For you have been delivered by grace through trusting, and even this is not your accomplishment but God’s gift. 9 You were not delivered by your own actions; therefore no one should boast. 10 For we are of God’s making, created in union with the Messiah Yeshua for a life of good actions already prepared by God for us to do.

11 Therefore, remember your former state: you Gentiles by birth — called the Uncircumcised by those who, merely because of an operation on their flesh, are called the Circumcised — 12 at that time had no Messiah. You were estranged from the national life of Isra’el. You were foreigners to the covenants embodying God’s promise. You were in this world without hope and without God.

13 But now, you who were once far off have been brought near through the shedding of the Messiah’s blood.
.

United together in Yeshua - His BRIDE - for all time

 

[annier]

You can not judge if the judge was qualified or not at the time he was installed in office.

Here is your text.......
Ez 3:20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Isa 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

First, let me say that there were some things done which were invalid, such as the first trial being held at night, but the trial recorded in Matthew 26 is the trial during the daytime

As ezekiel says, their qualifications for JUDGING, they were the righteous, which when they TURN FROM IT, are DISQUALIFIED UNTO LIFE. He shall die in his sin.

Yeshua could have easily called witnesses to counter any bad testimony.

They had turned from their righteousness long before they set in the Sanhedrin to put him to death.

They had turned from their righteousness from John's baptism on.

Eze 3:20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Ez 18: 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Eze 33:17 Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.
Eze 33:20 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.

Mt 9:10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
Mt 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
Mt 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Lu 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

The gentiles turning to God, from their SIN.... as Ezekiel says....

Ac 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Consider Ezekiel QNTS
Joh 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
Joh 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

 

[mishkan]

Right spiritually speaking.

Whatever that means, right?

It seems to me that you are both simply agreeing that Gentiles should not actually be ingrafted into Israel in any meaningful way.

What else is the meaning of "spiritually speaking"?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Right spiritually speaking.

No different than Yeshua noting to the Samaritans in John 4 that He was the Promised Messiah they had looked forward to - many becoming saved then as well as later in Acts 8/other times of ministry - with them (already having Israelite descent/background and yet being considered on the same level as Gentiles) being connected with the COmmonWealth of Israel and SPiritual Blessings found in it while they still remained as Samartians within their own culture - and the Israelites themselves who trusted in Yeshua remained as they were when it came to ministering (as Ethnic Israelites within the Remant) to the Nation of Israel.

No different than India or Jamaica becoming a CommonWealth of the British Empire - retaining their cultural values/heritage and yet also being impacted by British culture and experiencing life with British people who were already British and experiening the benefits/blessings and hinderances/struggles that come with life in the Empire.....for if Britain falls, everyone else is impacted - and likewise, for Gentiles connected to/grafted with Israel, when there's not a concern for ethnic Israel or finding ways of reaching out to their Jewish brothers/sisters just like the Jewish believers do, then they're impacted equally.

Romans 15:8
7 Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs9 so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:

“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
​

I will sing hymns to your name.”[c]

​

10 Again, it says,

“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”[d]
​

11 And again,

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
​

and sing praises to him, all you peoples.”[e]

​

12 And again, Isaiah says,

“The Root of Jesse will spring up,
​

one who will arise to rule over the nations;the Gentiles will hope in him.”[f]
​

13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.


Paul the Minister to the Gentiles

14 I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another. 15 I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

.........25 But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. 26 For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem. 27 It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. 28 So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this fruit, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. 29 I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ.
​

Yeshua made things very simple

To motivate believers to give to the offering Paul was collecting for the “poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Romans 15.26), he taught that since the Gentile believers had received spiritual blessings from the Jewish believers in Jerusalem, they owed it to the them to share their material blessings with the same. Jerusalem was a poor city and one must be careful to note that Jews in the Dispersion often sent money to relieve the needs of those in Jerusalem. Christians in Jerusalem (primarily Jewish) suffered particular hardship and Paul and Barnabas, had been involved in an earlier aid project in a time of famine (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25). Paul desired to visit Jerusalem with the gifts that the churches had raised for the Christians there (compare: Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9; cf. Acts 24:17).

In light of this context, Paul saw a deeper significance than just loving charity. To Paul the offering was symbolizing the unity of all types of believers - a token of fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. It was a duty (Rom 15:27), a solemn obligation of Gentile Christians in view of the privilege they had received in being grafted into God's olive tree (Rom 11:17) - with all of this conforming to the general principle that those who receive spiritual blessings should share their own material blessings (1 Cor 9:3-14; Gal 6:6).

Sadly, too often can the very simple things be made more complicated than they need to be - and consequently, people end up trying to demand for more when they've already been given enough. Examples would be people asking "Well, what is Spiritual?" with the agenda of trying to make it out as if it's something other than what was already plain by the text - as it concerns the Gospel.

The Gentiles had recieved the Gospel ("spiritual blessings") originally from Jerusalem - as it was from there that the Gospel had disseminated (Acts 1:8, Acts 8, etc.). And if the Gentiles had recieved the Gospel/"spiritual blessings" originally from Jerusalem, surely they would want to offer financial help to the Mother Church in Jerusalem.

For more technical addressment, when it comes to the words, some basic examination of what they mean, the term "Share in in the Jews Spiritual blessings" is interesting. Shared (2841) is koinoneo.. from koinos = that which is in common, belonging to several or of which several are partakers - the verb koinoneo is related to the noun koinonia translated "contribution" in Ro 15:26) means to to share one's possessions, with the implication of some kind of joint participation and mutual interest. This Greek word is used in a marriage contract where the husband and wife agree to a joint-participation in the necessaries of life. The key idea in the word is that of a partnership, a possessing things in common, a belonging in common to.

On the term "Spirtual blessings", Spiritual (4152) (pneumatikos from pneuma = spirit) relates to the human spirit, as the part of man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ. It refers to the nonmaterial rather than the material part of man. It is used predominately of what belongs to the supernatural world as compared to that which belongs to the natural world. Note that the suffix "-ikos" on the end of an adjective means signifies “-like”. Thus pneumatikos means “belonging to the spirit" or "of the nature of the spirit" and so "pertaining to that which is spiritual". For other places where Pneumatikos is used, it is used 26x in 21verses- Rom. 1:11; 7:14; 15:27; 1 Co. 2:13, 15; 3:1; 9:11; 10:3f; 12:1; 14:1, 37; 15:44, 46; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 1:3; 5:19; 6:12; Col. 1:9; 3:16; 1 Pet. 2:5.


As Middletown Bible Church wrote best:

Gentiles are debtors to Jews. We owe them so much because "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22). We owe them so much because the Bible is from the Jews. Indeed, even the authors of the New Testament were Jewish, with the only exception being Luke. We are debtors to the Jews because their God has become our God. Their Messiah has become our Saviour! Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things! It is only fitting that Gentiles should minister to them in carnal (material) things. Great spiritual blessings have come from them to us. It is appropriate then that great carnal or material blessings should come to them from us. We should help our Jewish brethren in every way we can. In a way we are also debtors to unbelieving Jews because of their godly heritage, even though they are not presently representing that heritage. The believer in Christ should be the best friend the Jew has in this world! (Romans 15)
​

With spiritual blessings, Paul actually broke down the same concept in Ephesians 1-2.

Ephesians 1:1-14
​

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Redemption in Christ

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both[] which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[] is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.
​

In a brief introduction, Paul begins his letter to the Ephesians with a lengthy description of the spiritual blessings we have in Christ. These blessings, covered in verses 3 to 14, are all one sentence in the original Greek - and Paul begins by blessing God for the blessings he has given us. He describes these blessings as “spiritual” blessings, and blessings that are in “heavenly places,”...and the blesings he noted:

• We are adopted as sons (v. 5).
• We have redemption and forgiveness of our trespasses (v. 7).
• We know the mystery of His will (v. 9).
• . We have obtained an inheritance (v. 11).
• We are sealed with the Holy Spirit (v. 13).

Spiritual Blessings we have in the Messiah are rich indeed

 

[mishkan]

So I see we've come to the same conclusion . I mean it's pretty plainly outlined in scripture , that's why I'm confused as to why many others disagree .

Because his response is qualified in such a manner as to invalidate what Paul wrote quite plainly in Ephesians 2.

 

[Ashlantal]

Because his response is qualified in such a manner as to invalidate what Paul wrote quite plainly in Ephesians 2.

Which is ?

 

[macher]

Whatever that means, right?

It seems to me that you are both simply agreeing that Gentiles should not actually be ingrafted into Israel in any meaningful way.

What else is the meaning of "spiritually speaking"?

That Gentiles receive the spiritual blessings because of being grafted in such as salvation as a result of the Abrahamic covenant being fulfilled, 'all families of the earth will be blessed'

 

[Gxg (G²)]

So I see we've come to the same conclusion . I mean it's pretty plainly outlined in scripture , that's why I'm confused as to why many others disagree .

Due to a false narrative of what it means to be One New Man, it leads to others assuming that being one new man/loving Israel equates to living life as Israelites/Hebrews. Such a thought was never found in the Jewish community of the 1st century Body of Christ - and it was often fought against since it went against the work of the Messiah.

Most of the ideology - similar to what was discussed in the early Ebionite groups which were deemed herectical/condemned for their views on Gentiles HAVING to live as the Jews in order to truly be connected to Israel - is found in what's known as One Law camps. And as said before, One law theology teaches that Gentiles who believe on Jesus are obligated to the same Mosaic laws as the children of Israel. The basis of this belief is taking verses out of context. The belief is that the Tenakh says there is one law for Israel, and the stranger/alien. Therefore what applies to Israel applies to Gentiles who are sojourning with Israel. This, in many ways, is a mirror image of one of the other struggles within the MESSIANIC Jewish movement today - which is Two House...specifically the forms of it that say that Gentiles are automatically Ephraimites (i.e. of the House of Israel that, in their view, was scattered and dispersed in II Kings 17) - and that Gentiles must be of the Ephraimite tribe in order to be connected with Israel/show what it means to be ingrafted in a meaningful way. It leads to Gentiles seeking to live as Israel/identify as Israel because of the understanding that 1.) God made a Covenant with Israel/had all blessings come through that and 2.) Only in Israel is one blessed.

One Law theology acknowledges the distinction between Ekklesia and Israel in principle, but Gentile believers are considered to come under the Mosaic covenant, making observance obligatory. In the negative aspects, Two House ends where One Law begins, for the main reasons other Gentiles have been so focused on having identity with Israel and seeing connection with it is due to the influence of others saying that God only blessed Israel, had his blessings come through Israel, wants all to be FOCUSED on Israel, and expects Gentiles to live as Jews if they're to be a part of the COmmonWealth of Israel.

If interested, there're some good articles on the issue by John McKee that addresses what you noted earlier (concerning the claim that only physical sons of Jacob were considered "Israelites")....entitled "“One Law” as Replacement Theology - TNN Online. Additionally, for other good reviews on the issue:

• "One Law Movements" by Dan Juster and Russ Resnik
• Is the Torah Only for Jews? (and one can read Rabbi Resnik's entire response here - from the UMJC)
• Part I: Excerpts from UMJC 2012 Conference lecture by BoaZ (FFOZ) << Daily Minyan
• Part II: Excerpts from UMJC 2012 Conference lecture by Boaz Michael (FFOZ) << Daily Minyan

Although all believers are under ONE House - the House of the Messiah - to be held to the same standards/accountability isn't the same as all having the SAME tasks given ..and that's where much of One Law gets itself into trouble.

To be clear, in what I'm saying, I think that one has to be careful whenever it comes to discussing things such as One Law or Two House---as they many variations and some of them are well in line with/consistent with things found in the organizations you noted. The variations in what a term may mean can be likened to what occurs whenever there's discussion on what it means to be "Charismatic", as there are a myriad of variations and others often seen one variation of "Charismatic" that's negative/discuss others drawn to it and yet there's not a realization that other things labeled "Charismatic" are very much a beautiful thing to witness. Sometimes, trying to ask what one group looks like is akin to asking what the shape of an ocean wave is. There is diversity and that is something which needs to be respected.

Some see One Law in the sense of a Constitution, where there were differing laws given to certain groups even though all were under the U.S Constitution and subject to what it said. Just because one was not in the same category as another didn't mean that they were under one law...and the same can be said in regards to Jews and Gentiles. Many scriptures teach that not all of the Torah applies to Gentiles that it should be a simple conclusion. For example, the Torah itself says Shabbat is only for Israel (Exod. 31:13), dietary law is only for Israel (Deut. 14:21), and circumcision is only for Israel (Gen. 17). Galatians 5 warns the Gentiles considering conversion that if they allow themselves to be circumcised they will have to keep the whole Torah (Gal. 5:3). Colossians 2:16 tells Gentiles not to let others judge them regarding a Sabbath day. Romans 14:5, discussing differences between Jews and Gentiles, notes that not all follow the Sabbath

We're meant to be "One" in Messiah:

Ephesians 2:3

One in Christ

11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)&#8212; 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.



​

As David Stern made clear, the phrase "Gentile by Birth" makes clear that one who is a Gentile does not stop being a Gentile when joining the Jews/believing the Gospel, though it does change if he becomes a Jewish proselyte. Even though there is a real difference spiritually between Jew and Gentile, the reality remains that the Gentiles are no longer seperated and can join the Jewish people/be one with them without having to become Jewish/follow the customs of the Jews--as what makes the difference is FAITH. The cancelling of Eminity between Jew and Gentile can be found clearly in inspiring examples such as among Messianic Jewish believers and truly believing Arab Christians in the Land of Israel today---if ever being there. Where the world expects hate or one side trying to convert the other to its views (or at best, wary tolerance), they find a degree of trust and love from the Messiah that goes beyond politics.

On the enmity caused by the Torah, as it gave occassion to sin, the issues between Jews/Gentiles were with four components: (1) Gentile envy of the special status accorded by God to Israel in the Torah. (2) Jewish people being chosen (3) Gentile resentment of that pride (4). Mutual dislike of each others customs...but all of those factors were destroyed when the Messiah came to die for all sinners with is attoning death.


In regards to the Gentiles, the Lord never had the mindset that they needed to become as the Jews in order to be acceptable to the Lord----and those saying otherwise, I've yet to really see why they persist.

 

[macher]

Due to a false narrative of what it means to be One New Man, it leads to others assuming that being one new man/loving Israel equates to living life as Israelites/Hebrews. Such a thought was never found in the Jewish community of the 1st century Body of Christ - and it was often fought against since it went against the work of the Messiah.

Ok circumcision was the issue. If Gentiles got circumcised then there would be no promise of Messiah to the Gentiles. He'd be God of Israel(Jews) only meaning to be 'part of' you have to be circumcised.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Ok circumcision was the issue. If Gentiles got circumcised then there would be no promise of Messiah to the Gentiles. He'd be God of Israel(Jews) only meaning to be 'part of' you have to be circumcised.

If I understood you correctly, you're obviously against the thought that Gentiles had to be circumcised as the Jewish people did (as apart of their heritage) in order to recieve the Messiah - correct? And you're also saying that circumcision was THE issue - or one issue among many?

Just trying to be certain. I do think Rabbi Russ Resnik's response on the issue (from the UMJC) did a great job of laying out the issue. Based on I Corinthians 7 ("remain as you were before you became saved") and other places, I do see rather plainly where there were multiple issues at work - with circumcision being a key issue...and more was shared in-depth on the issue elsewhere (#493 #494 and #529 ).

For the sake of further detail for clarification (and you can stop reading past this point if you feel it was already understood well enough ) Acts 15 discusses the assertion by some believers that a man must be circumcised in order to be saved. The conclusion of the Apostles and Elders (Acts 15:20), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was to lay upon the Gentiles only four requirements:

&#8226; to avoid fornication

&#8226; to avoid idolatry

&#8226; to avoid eating blood

&#8226; to avoid eating that which is strangled.
​

These are very similar to the Noahide laws. This does not mean that Gentiles are free to murder, steal, and dishonor their parents. The passage assumes a universal morality, as do Paul, Peter, and James (who were present that day), and John in their writings. As Romans 2 notes, Gentiles can perceive the law of God, even without the revelation of Moses, and are responsible for many standards that are also expressed in the Bible. For example, classic Roman moral law taught the ideals of monogamous marriage, honoring parents, honesty and much

<B>

Acts 15:20, 29​

​

</B>
. . . that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell (Acts 15:29).
​

​

​

​

​

(1) The prohibition against eating blood is NOT from the Mosaic law. It is from Genesis 9:2-4, which obviously predates Mosaic law. This is a universal prohibition for the entire human race and for all time. (If you try to argue that it is not, you must also argue that the prohibition against murder is not.)

(2) According to Genesis 9:3-4, blood is not food. It does not say that blood is a forbidden food; it says that blood is not food (for, just as God defined food in Genesis 1:29 as plant matter, here He defines food as plant matter and animal flesh, excluding blood).

(3) Whenever one bleeds an animal killed for meat, he has fulfilled the command of Genesis 9 not to eat meat with the blood. (By the way, eating a rare steak is not sin, as long as the meat was properly bled when it was slaughtered. A small amount of blood always remains in meat even after bleeding. Further, cooking meat so that it no longer appears red does not remove the tiny bit of blood that remains &#8211; it simply changes its color.) To put it more precisely, in Genesis 9 God forbids the INTENTIONAL eating of blood &#8211; either by extracting blood and drinking it, or by intentionally leaving it in meat slaughtered for consumption. This is because &#8220;the life is in the blood&#8221; (Leviticus 17:11). There is something fundamentally wrong with eating what still has the life in it. This is related to the whole concept of sacrifice that is so central to Christ&#8217;s redeeming work, for in the spilling of blood there is the taking of life. It is also one of the reasons why many pagan religions advocate the eating of blood. There was actually an entire pagan theology of eating one&#8217;s enemies in order to absorb their life-force - and that occurred all over the world, especially in Latin American cultures like the Mayans or the Aztecs...

(4) Fornication is also something that God universally prohibits, though it is more difficult to find this in Scripture by chapter and verse. Genesis 2:24 essentially establishes the only context in which sexual relations are approved by God: marriage. This is not a merely Mosaic regulation; it is universally binding on all of mankind. It is clear that God forbids fornication (i.e. sexual immorality &#8211; any kind of sex outside of marriage) even among pagans. Again, the prohibition against fornication is not a Mosaic prohibition, but a universal one.

(5) Idolatry is obviously also something that God universally forbids. This hardly needs to be supported (and one can go to Romans 1:22-25 for just one example).

(6) The conclusion is clear. The four things prohibited in the Acts 15 letter are all NON-MOSAIC, universal regulations. They are, and always have been, universally binding on all humans. They are, however, also strongly emphasized in Mosaic law. Pagan society in the first century was woefully unaware of these universal regulations &#8211; except through the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures (hence James&#8217; comment in Acts 15:21). When the Jerusalem church agreed that Mosaic regulations should not be imposed on the Gentile believers, they recognized that with the rejection of Mosaic regulations as binding on Gentile Christians, it might be understood that the prohibitions against idolatry, eating blood, eating strangled meat, and fornication should also be thrown out, as they were only generally known through Mosaic law. The church was careful to restate these regulations not because they wanted to avoid scandalizing Jewish believers, but because they were and are and always will be universally binding on all mankind. They did not want to appear to be condoning what God had universally condemned.

The only requirement placed on the Gentile believers was that they &#8220;abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication&#8221; (verse 25). The problem seems to be in what the Jerusalem Council did not say about Jewish practice. The Jerusalem elders probably clarified the fact that Jewish Christians could continue to keep the law, not as a means to salvation, but as an expression of love and obedience.

They could delight in the law, not because it gave them any merit or standing before God, but because it had been fulfilled in Christ, and because they were now righteous in God&#8217;s sight. The standards of righteousness which the law upheld were now no longer a cause of fear, but the basis for rejoicing and worship. They once were frustrated by their own failure to fulfill the laws demands, but now they rejoiced because Christ had fulfilled the entire law and they were not under the curse. And the kingdom to which the Old Testament saint looked forward was a certainty, which Jewish and Gentile saints would receive together (see Hebrews 11:39-40).

Paul&#8217;s very strong words in the Book of Galatians were addressed to those who would impose the law and law-keeping on Gentile believers, not toward those who were true believers and who wished, as Jewish Christians, to continue to live in accordance with the law and to observe Old Testament rituals. It was one (damnable) thing for Judaisers to insist that Gentile saints must keep the law in order to be saved, and quite another for Jewish Christians to keep the law because they were saved. Even Gentiles were not turned away from the law, but were enabled to fulfill its requirements:

Romans 8:1-4
​

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit .
​

 

[macher]

If I understood you correctly, you're obviously against the thought that Gentiles had to be circumcised as the Jewish people did (as apart of their heritage) in order to recieve the Messiah - correct? And you're also saying that circumcision was THE issue - or one issue among many?

For based on I Corinthians 7 ("remain as you were before you became saved") and other places, I do see rather plainly where there were multiple issues at work.

I'm saying that Paul was 'remain as you are' because of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that all families of the Earth will be blessed.

If Gentiles were to be circumcised than it would be contrary to the promise to Abraham. The whole theology foundation if you will is the Abrahamic Covenant.