Gentiles? Not Anymore!

[Josheb]

....(CLV) Hb 8:10
"For this is the covenant which I shall be covenanting with the house of Israel after those days," the Lord is saying: "Imparting My laws to their comprehension, On their hearts, also, shall I be inscribing them, And I shall be to them for a God, And they shall be to Me for a people.


14 For He is our Peace, Who makes both one, and razes the central wall of the barrier"

No difference between those who were born into the false dogma of Judaism, and those who were born into the false teaching of Paganism. All of those in Yahshua are in the truth of YHWH's perfect Torah.

HARK! two things for you to consider about the way you post. First, when using different colors apply some uniformity that aids the reading. When you quote scripture in a color and then add your own commentary in that same color it reads as if you're intending for us to read your words with the same authority as scripture and that's not gonna help your persuasion for a number of reasons. Consider also at least some of us are color blind and may not pick up on differing shades of same colors.

Second, remember you have other formatting options, such as indenting scripture that enhance both the flow of the reading and the ease of understanding. At first glance this op looks like a wall of text and I almost didn't bother reading it at all. There's no rhyme or reason to the use of color and there's not diversity in format. It's a lot of scripture (which is generally a good thing but the addresses would have sufficed in some places) but the one commentary is colored to hide its anecdotal nature.


And... again, I remind you nothing is enhanced by using the foreign language of covenant-breakers, especially when using some of the more esoteric words that may not be known to some.

 

[Josheb]

No difference between those who were born into the false dogma of Judaism, and those who were born into the false teaching of Paganism. All of those in Yahshua are in the truth of YHWH's perfect Torah.

You wouldn't be trying to deflect readers away from the obvious conclusion that it is, yes, the Law, that functions as a divider between Jew and Gentile?

Peter didn't think so, from the vision he came to understand the "fence" that separated Jew from Gentle wasn't God law, but the Jewish talmud.

I can see part of what you said but.. where did you get "he camed to understand the fence that separated Jew from Gentle (ok) wasn't Gods law but the Jewish Talmud. How do we know this? That last part? Did I miss it in the word?

Folks, it is not the Law that separates the Jew from the Gentile.

It is God having chosen the Jew that first separates (makes holy) them God gave the law to his already separated (holy) people, not the other way around. The Gentiles were brought into the covenant because the holy people had become repetitiously idolatrous adulterous covenant-breakers. A people who were not God's people were made God's people. A people who were not called His, were called His.

Furthermore, the two are made one in Christ, the Gentile grafted into the already existing tree that was Israel, the progeny of one single individual who long before the Jews existed had been made separate (holy) from all others; Abraham!


Holiness (separateness) precedes the law.

Not the other way around.


Furthermore, the law is written on the human heart apart from the code of Moses. It is written into the design of creation and especially so in humans who are by nature moral creatures, and again in a different manner with the indwelling of the Holy (separate) Spirit by Whom conviction occurs and Who never contradicts either the written nor the incarnate Word.

 

[HARK!]

The Gentiles were brought into the covenant because the holy people had become repetitiously idolatrous adulterous covenant-breakers.

Israel is in covenant. Nowhere did YHWH make a covenant with Pagans. YHWH brought a mixed multitude into his covenant with Israel at Sinai. The door has always been open to those who seek YHWH.

 

[HARK!]

HARK! two things for you to consider about the way you post. First, when using different colors apply some uniformity that aids the reading. When you quote scripture in a color and then add your own commentary in that same color it reads as if you're intending for us to read your words with the same authority as scripture and that's not gonna help your persuasion for a number of reasons. Consider also at least some of us are color blind and may not pick up on differing shades of same colors.

Second, remember you have other formatting options, such as indenting scripture that enhance both the flow of the reading and the ease of understanding. At first glance this op looks like a wall of text and I almost didn't bother reading it at all. There's no rhyme or reason to the use of color and there's not diversity in format. It's a lot of scripture (which is generally a good thing but the addresses would have sufficed in some places) but the one commentary is colored to hide its anecdotal nature.


And... again, I remind you nothing is enhanced by using the foreign language of covenant-breakers, especially when using some of the more esoteric words that may not be known to some.

I thought that the color blind could differentiate between red and black. If not they'll have to to rely on the clearly marked verses. The scripture that is in red was injected into the passage, along with the commentary. It's clearly marked as scripture, not my word. Even if it wasn't marked; so what? The purpose was to set aside all that was not in the passage that was being commented on. I use this format regularly. I hope this explanation helps you in the future.

Thanks for sharing

 

[Scott Husted]

No it doesn't One could be good and one could be better. One can make endless comparisons.

Jesus seemed to think that you should either make the tree good or make it evil ... but then again the law is full of comparisons to that same end ...

 

[Scott Husted]

I’ve been waiting for someone to show us that the Law was ever called a fence, a wall, or any other sort of structure that blocks and keeps people out.

If you rely on it to get you in then it is this and more ... which was really Paul's point all along for those still wandering around in the wilderness of their own mind. Everyone should be persuaded in their own mind ...

God calls every son out of Egypt ... whether they understand this or not can only come from Him, just as this is how it came to Jesus.

 

[Josheb]

Israel is in covenant. Nowhere did YHWH make a covenant with Pagans. YHWH brought a mixed multitude into his covenant with Israel at Sinai.

You've just contradicted yourself, HARK! If God made brought a mixed multitude into His covenant then He made a covenant with pagans, or at least the pagans that are part of the mixed multitude. Besides, the covenant made with Israel was for the Gentiles!

Isaiah 42:5-7
"Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it, 'I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I will also hold you by the hand and watch over you, And I will appoint you as a covenant to the people, as a light to the nations, to open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from the dungeon and those who dwell in darkness from the prison....'"​

Verses cited in this very OP lead to this knowledge (when read in their full context ),

Ephesians 2:11-16
"Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called 'Circumcision,' which is performed in the flesh by human hands — remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in his flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in himself he might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity."​

Romans 5:19
"For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."​

1 Corinthians 12:13
"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink."​

Galatians 3:28
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."​

God did, in fact, make a covenant with Gentiles (nor pagans ).

The door has always been open to those who seek YHWH.

That's correct; the righteous shall live by faith (not Law).



Let's not lose the salient points of my op-reply:

• Israel was already a separated people when the Law was given. Therefore holiness precedes the Law as the basis for the separation between Jew and Gentile.
• The Gentile convert(s) are grafted into an already existing tree in which a people not God's people are not His people.
• The law of God comes in diverse forms, so discernment of the distinctions and contexts are important for proper understanding.

 

[Josheb]

I thought that the color blind could differentiate between red and black. If not they'll have to to rely on the clearly marked verses. The scripture that is in red was injected into the passage, along with the commentary. It's clearly marked as scripture, not my word. Even if it wasn't marked; so what? The purpose was to set aside all that was not in the passage that was being commented on. I use this format regularly. I hope this explanation helps you in the future.

Thanks for sharing

The most salient point is you posted both scripture and your own personal commentary in the same color. This makes it look like you are making your personal views equal to that of scripture. I assume that's not intended. If I have that assumption incorrect then do please let me know if you do think your personal views are the equivalent of scripture and their authority. I for one, and I suspect many others here would like to see that in writing.

I hope that explains why it is I hope you will improve upon this format you regularly use. Post scripture in whatever color you like but post personal comments in a different color (like post #87, for example ).

 

[ViaCrucis]

If you meant church; why didn't you say church? I don't see "Christ's holy and catholic Church" anywhere in the Bible.

I did say Church. Christ's holy and catholic Church. The Church is Christ's, and it is holy and catholic. Or do you disagree that the Church belongs to Jesus Christ?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Minister Monardo]

I’ve been waiting for someone to show us that the Law was ever called a fence, a wall, or any other sort of structure that blocks and keeps people out.

Nay, but praise be to the Father that separates sinners from the righteous, the sheep from the goats.
CLV. 1 Timothy 1:
5 Now the consummation of the charge is love out of a clean heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith,
6 from which some, swerving, were turned aside into vain prating,
7 wanting to be teachers of the law, not apprehending either what they are saying, or that concerning which they are insisting."
8 Now we are aware that the law is ideal if ever anyone is using it lawfully,
9 being aware of this, that law is not laid down for the just, yet it is for the lawless and insubordinate, the irreverent and sinners, the malign and profane, thrashers of fathers and thrashers of mothers, homicides,
10 paramours, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and if any other thing is opposing sound teaching,
11 in accord with the evangel of the glory of the happy God, with which I was entrusted.
If we walk in the Spirit, we fulfill the Law, our conscience bearing witness, without a law code.
Romans 8:4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
When we think or act in accordance with the carnal mind, we are lawbreakers, even if we try to justify ourselves into thinking what we say or do is right.
James 2:9. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
Remember this, Peter confessed "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!"
A few verses later, after being told by Yeshua that He is going to Jerusalem to suffer and die,
Peter rebuked Him; "Lord, let it never be so!"
And Yeshua spoke in response: "Get behind me, Satan!
Just a little something to contemplate.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let's also be clear about something. There was no Talmud at the time of Jesus. The Mishnah was not yet written down, though the teachings handed down which would be written down later on, did exist.

The Talmud consists of two parts, the Mishnah itself, as well as the Gemara, the commentary of the rabbis.

There are two Talmuds, the Jerusalem Talmud (which as far as I know only exists in fragmentary form) and the Babylonian Talmud; as the rabbinate moved east following the expulsion of the Jews under Hadrian. It is the Babylonian Talmud that has survived and preserved among the rabbanim.

Let's also be clear that what Jesus took issue with was not Jewish tradition and practice, but with the abuses of religion; the taking of tradition or practice against the intent of God's purposes, loving justice and mercy, and the use of religion as a wedge and a cudgel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Minister Monardo]

Let's also be clear about something. There was no Talmud at the time of Jesus. The Mishnah was not yet written down, though the teachings handed down which would be written down later on, did exist.

The Talmud consists of two parts, the Mishnah itself, as well as the Gemara, the commentary of the rabbis.

There are two Talmuds, the Jerusalem Talmud (which as far as I know only exists in fragmentary form) and the Babylonian Talmud; as the rabbinate moved east following the expulsion of the Jews under Hadrian. It is the Babylonian Talmud that has survived and preserved among the rabbanim.

Let's also be clear that what Jesus took issue with was not Jewish tradition and practice, but with the abuses of religion; the taking of tradition or practice against the intent of God's purposes, loving justice and mercy, and the use of religion as a wedge and a cudgel.

So are you saying that any of this codification by man is of any use to someone who is abiding in the promise of the Father? Or were you just sharing your knowledge of that which was not born from the wisdom from above, the day star? What is the purpose here?

 

[nolidad]

Ephesians 2

11 Wherefore, remember that once you, the nations (Gentiles) in flesh - who are termed 'Uncircumcision' by those termed 'Circumcision,' in flesh, made by hands -"

Not anymore!

12 that you were, in that era, apart from Christ, being alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and guests of the promise covenants, having no expectation, and without God in the world."

Not anymore! Hmmm...covenants, plural.

13 Yet now, in Christ Jesus, you, who once are far off, are become near by the blood of Christ."

Citizens of Israel.


(CLV) Hb 8:10
"For this is the covenant which I shall be covenanting with the house of Israel after those days," the Lord is saying: "Imparting My laws to their comprehension, On their hearts, also, shall I be inscribing them, And I shall be to them for a God, And they shall be to Me for a people.


14 For He is our Peace, Who makes both one, and razes the central wall of the barrier"

No difference between those who were born into the false dogma of Judaism, and those who were born into the false teaching of Paganism. All of those in Yahshua are in the truth of YHWH's perfect Torah.

15 (the enmity in His flesh), nullifying the law of precepts in decrees, (dogma, Talmud) that He should be creating the two, in Himself, into one new humanity, making peace;"

Israel!

(CLV) Mt 15:24
Now He, answering, said, "I was not commissioned except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel."



16 and should be reconciling both in one body to God through the cross, killing the enmity in it."

(CLV) Num 15:15
As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the sojourner sojourning with you. It shall be an eonian (FOREVER) statute throughout your generations. Like you so shall the sojourner be before Yahweh.

17 And, coming, He brings the evangel of peace to you, those afar, and peace to those near, 18 for through Him we both have had access, in one spirit, to the Father." 19 Consequently, then, no longer are you guests and sojourners, but are fellow-citizens of the saints and belong to God's family,

(CLV) Num 15:16
One law and one custom, it shall come to be for you and for the sojourner sojourning with you.

(CLV) Ex 12:49
One law shall there be for both the native and for the sojourner sojourning in your midst.


(CLV) Lv 24:22
The same judgment shall you come to have; for the sojourner as well as the native shall it be: for I, Yahweh, am your Elohim.

(CLV) Num 15:29
For the native among the sons of Israel and for the sojourner sojourning in their midst, one law shall apply for you, to anyone doing it through inadvertence.

Doesn't mean the Mosaic Covenant Paul and jesus both made it clear it is no longer valid.

But the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants could be the ones. Not the Palestinian either for the church has never been promised a land.

 

[expos4ever]

"I’ve been waiting for someone to show us that the Law was ever called a fence, a wall, or any other sort of structure that blocks and keeps people out."

Really?

We have this from Leviticus which clearly implies that the food laws - part of the Law - are there to mark out the Israelite as "set apart" from the nations:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything [p]that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26 Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine

It is almost not possible to be more clear, without actually using words like "fence" or "barrier", that these food practices function to mark out the Israelite as distinct from the rest of the world.

Remember what walls, fences, or any structures barriers actually do - they separate people.

 

[HARK!]

You've just contradicted yourself, HARK! If God made brought a mixed multitude into His covenant then He made a covenant with pagans, or at least the pagans that are part of the mixed multitude. Besides, the covenant made with Israel was for the Gentiles!

No, you misunderstood. Once they crossed over into covenant, they were no longer Pagans. They were Israel. You don't see the Torah mentioning another group after they entered covenant.

Mixed multitude, the nations, Pagans, gentiles, same difference. If you aren't Israel, you aren't in covenant.

Verses cited in this very OP lead to this knowledge (when read in their full context ),

Doubtful...

Ephesians 2:11-16
"Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh,

Very important word!

Galatians 3:28
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Making my point.

God did, in fact, make a covenant with Gentiles

(CLV) Hb 8:10
"For this is the covenant which I shall be covenanting with the house of Israel after those days," the Lord is saying: "Imparting My laws to their comprehension, On their hearts, also, shall I be inscribing them, And I shall be to them for a God, And they shall be to Me for a people.

No mention of Pagan gentiles here.

That's correct; the righteous shall live by faith (not Law).

(CLV) Gn 15:6
Now Abram believed ion Elohim, and He reckoned it to him for righteousness

(CLV) Gn 26:5
inasmuch as your father Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My instructions, My statutes and My laws.

(CLV) Ja 2:21
Abraham, our father, was he not justified by works when offering up his son Isaac on the altar?

(CLV) Ja 2:22
You are observing that faith worked together with his works, and by works was faith perfected.

(CLV) Ja 2:23
And fulfilled was the scripture which is saying, Now "Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."

 

[HARK!]

I did say Church. Christ's holy and catholic Church. The Church is Christ's, and it is holy and catholic. Or do you disagree that the Church belongs to Jesus Christ?

I don't see "Christ's holy and catholic Church" anywhere in the Bible.

 

[HARK!]

Let's also be clear about something. There was no Talmud at the time of Jesus. The Mishnah was not yet written down, though the teachings handed down which would be written down later on, did exist.

The oral law is the Mishna, is the Talmud. Let's not split hairs here. You know what I'm taking about. Many who don't know what the Mishna is, know of the Talmud.

 

[HARK!]

Let's also be clear that what Jesus took issue with was not Jewish tradition and practice, but with the abuses of religion; the taking of tradition or practice against the intent of God's purposes, loving justice and mercy, and the use of religion as a wedge and a cudgel.

Let's be as clear as I have been from the beginning. Yahshua rebuked those who put the Talmud over the Torah.

 

[Josheb]

I understand the word "formerly," HARK! Making it larger, changing the color, and italicizing it doesn't change anything. I have already addressed every single aspect of your post. You've just ignored what I wrote and wasted both our time. All for the sake of telling me I don't understand.

No, you misunderstood.

And out come the ad hominems.



You let me know when you are able and willing to discuss this op without mentioning me (or any other poster) personally, especially not in derision.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So are you saying that any of this codification by man is of any use to someone who is abiding in the promise of the Father? Or were you just sharing your knowledge of that which was not born from the wisdom from above, the day star? What is the purpose here?

The point was to clarify history.

-CryptoLutheran