Hebrews

How does Christianity reconcile both laws as being valid but only one law, the "new" one, as being the only true law to follow?

Click to expand...

A more accurate rendering would be: How do some Christians reconcile G_od's law, including the 'new' ones, as being the only true Law to follow? Not all Christians have the problem you espouse. Yeshua's law is not new - it is a correct understanding of the whole of G_d's law. It is the perversion by the church of those understandings, over the centuries, that has created this problem and, as Scripture says, weak people will listen to what they want to hear, the things that tickle their ears!

Heber said:

A more accurate rendering would be: How do some Christians reconcile G_od's law, including the 'new' ones, as being the only true Law to follow? Not all Christians have the problem you espouse. Yeshua's law is not new - it is a correct understanding of the whole of G_d's law. It is the perversion by the church of those understandings, over the centuries, that has created this problem and, as Scripture says, weak people will listen to what they want to hear, the things that tickle their ears!

Click to expand...

How true is that! How anyone can get the idea there is only new or one law is beyond me. I just can't see any 'new' laws that have been added anywhere. Even Yeshua said that, 'these two hang on' which says to me they can be summed up in two but not that any of G-d's laws have been done away with.

Tanakh said:

Sorry for not making it more clear.

My question is that if Christians are supposed to be apostles to the Christian creed of salvation through Jesus then how are people 2000 years after the true or origional apostles supposed to make sense of the "New Testament" when Jews and Christians are more or less apposed to each others interpretation of the text?

Click to expand...

Oh...easy...check out the interpretations of the (now) disputed texts that were around in the 1stC. The Christian interpretations have precedents when one looks at them in the context of the era in which they were written. It is only since the growth of Christianity that the rabbinic interpretations that Christians hold to have been disputed with unusual vigour. In effect, the Christian interpretation has since been "ruled out" by post-Temple era Rabbis. This was not the case in the 1stC- Temple era Rabbis offered and set in motion interpretations that would ratify the coming of Yeshua, and the church has held those to be true as the custodian of the faith.

This is of course not to imply that the scritpures are not clear in and of themselves but rather is a question aimed at what Christianity expects of converts in viewing the Christian creed of the "law". How does Christianity reconcile both laws as being valid but only one law, the "new" one, as being the only true law to follow?

Click to expand...

To be frank, asking this forum to give you the Christian spin on the "law" is like asking a bunch of kids what their favorite candy is. You'll get myriads of contradictory answers. These questions are better asked in forums with a more matured and long established faith, well, this is my opinion anyway. Like Judaism, there is a permeable flexibility in theology- the answers you get here will not necessarily be wrong, but they might be too.

On this forum they make what bookies call an "each way bet", trying to blend current rabbinic interpretations of Torah with modern Protestant paradigms. It's a strange cow sometimes. But, you can get some reasonable responses too. If you want a sane current-day "Messianic" explanation of this question, rely on our gentile friends Heber or Steve Peterson or insaneinthebrain or SGH4HIM for answers. (The best way is to approach Christianity with ancient rabbinic interpretations and ancient Church paradigms. Only then does everything start looking clear. I can only speak from the point of view of a Jewish convert who believes the ancient church perspective.)

Originally Posted by Tanakh but amended by Heber

My question is that if Christians [followers] of the creed of salvation through Jesus, how are people 2000 years after the apostles supposed to make sense of the "New Testament" when Jews and Christians are opposed to each others interpretation of the text?
​

Click to expand...

Having made a provisional response to the second part of the question, I may as well tackle this part, too! Please forgive me Tanakh, but I have redacted the question, as shown above, to make it clearer to follow.

I do not think too many people will be confused in a straight Jews vs Christian context. Many people will simply take it 'as read' that there are problems between the two traditions of understanding who G_d is and his place in today's world, they will also note many similarities.

When it comes to trying to join Jews and Christians as was the original point of Messianic Judaism, it becomes less clear and the difficult texts show up in stark relief, as you have addressed the matter. Some of these texts have the potential to derail any further debate on this subject and must be dealt with accordingly. Other texts are not quite so problematical, depending on whom it is you are discussing the issues with (either Jew or Christian). The truth is that it is not just texts that are the problem - they can be debated between rational people just as is done within either tradition now; there is far deeper question that affects everything from the first word to the last that may be uttered on this issue. Every Christian and every Jew carries historical baggage (please do not enlarge on it - I know it only too well and am ashamed that it is still a problem between us), but why should this continue? Why can we not start a movement to call it a day and rid ourselves of this wall of partition in respect to historical truths?

What is needed, in reality, as an initial action, is for the church to truly and unequivocally repent of its anti-Jewish activities over two millennia, including but not limited to, its institutionalised view that it, alone, is the new Israel of G_d (and the actions that have arisen because of that view)

Jews, on the other hand, would need to accept that apology in all seriousness and cease to beat Christians over the head with these issues, even though, in the past, such things have been warranted without a doubt.

If we can put behind us our awful history - which I know is asking a lot, but my G_d, who is your G_d also, can do great things, as we both know - then we might be better able to sit down and discuss a variety of issues at an academic level. It is my firm opinion, and something I spend a lot of my life on, that unless the historical issues are faced head on, with brutal honesty on both sides, as critical friends, and true, weeping repentance, we shall never get past the starting gate. But I live in hope that this can be done and I will fight for this until my last breath. I simply cannot give up, as some do, and walk away from the thought that even if have to say we must disagree on some key areas, that we cannot truly live as brothers and sisters under the G_d whom we share and whom we worship, supposedly, with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind and with all our strength; what a sham his word shows us to be!

If we love G_d we must love all who love him - not with a love the world holds but with an extreme love that is borne of him through all that revelation that he has given us. In the face of this, perhaps your question, Tanakh, is one that cannot be truly answered until we deal with our respective baggage. I love you dearly because you clearly love our G-d dearly - but the way we see our G_d is coloured by the generational fear, mis-trust and and apathy of our respective forefathers. Oh that we could see through the fog and see the spiritual beauty that both have in G_d's eyes.

Hope this makes sense to you - it does to me!


PS CM - thank you for your kind words, now I have to live up to them

Heber said:

What is needed, in reality, as an initial action, is for the church to truly and unequivocally repent of its anti-Jewish activities over two millennia, including but not limited to, its institutionalised view that it, alone, is the new Israel of G_d (and the actions that have arisen because of that view)

Click to expand...

Well, the Vatican has already done that- now all we need is the protestants and the Orthodox (especially the Orthodox, who still have anti-semitism in their liturgy and refuse to debate their own theologians who want it removed!) to follow suit. Until there is unilateral repentance, it will always betray true trust. OTOH, the Jews need to learn to move on and stop dragging up past sins every time there is disagreement. I think 90% of the Jews I have in my life are very good at this, but some groups make a living out of being victims and they need to repent too. We have an Air Force now, guys...can we move on to the future now?

Jews, on the other hand, would need to accept that apology in all seriousness and cease to beat Christians over the head with these issues, even though, in the past, such things have been warranted without a doubt.

Click to expand...

I typed the paragraph above before I read this...you are quite right. But, to be honest, you and I as one in Messiah and in our little leadership roles in that body really need to worry about our side of the discussion for now. There are good Jews working among the people that really want to move forward, and we need to assist them by prayer and charity to that end, but ultimately, it's their job to lead the people. Some of my family are very much into the reconciliation idea...others are not.

PS CM - thank you for your kind words, now I have to live up to them

Click to expand...

You usually do just fine!

Has any part of the church repented of its institutionalised view that it is the new Israel and the consequent cause of that, that G_d has rejected the Jews and favours the church?

I know the RCC has 'forgiven' the Jews for killing Yeshua and has repented of its own actions but it still seems to favour itself, along with many other denominations, as the new Israel. See 'The Church is Israel Now' by Charles D Proven which has a distinct RCC flaour to it.

Tanakh said:

In Romans, Paul states that the uncircumcised gentile who is kind in spirit is worth more then the Jew who is circumcised in body who is wicked because the former acts in accord with G-d's will and it is true that both Jew and gentile are commanded to do good, however Christianity misses that point that G-d commands all Jews to be circumcised at eight day old, meaning that they have not committed any evil deeds at that time and so they are good but as they age then their evil inclination manifests itself and might cause them to act in accordance with his own will instead of that of G-d. Circumcision is the sign of the covenant not the forbearer of good or bad deeds and so even if a gentile were to be better then a Jew this in no way diminishes circumcision as a sign of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people.

This is one reason why we Jews do not see the "light of day" with the Gospels.

Click to expand...

When it comes to obedience to the command for circumcision, the Jew, unless it happened later in life, was a baby whose parents were following the commandment. Paul said it meant nothing, had not value, when it came to the character manifestations. I believe that Paul was dealing with a group of Jews who, due to the controversy that was happening in the 1st century, were zealous of the circumcised position. As I understand it, there was some Jews who were trying to reverse their circumcision because of the Roman imputed stigma, thus causing those who valued it to overvalue it to compensate. Paul was just trying to correct the error and bring balance and focus on the inner spiritual obedience as being far more valuable.

"Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of G-d and know His will and are able to discern what is important since you are instructed from the law, and if you are confident that you are a guide for the blind and a light for those in darkness, that you are a trainer of the foolish and teacher of the simple, because in the law you have the formulation of knowledge and truth - then you who teach another, are you failing to teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples? You who boast of the law, do you dishonor G-d by breaking the law? For, as it is written, "Because of you the name of G-d is reviled among the Gentiles." Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you brake the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who brake the law. One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from G-d." - Romans 2:17-29

This is of course to say that if one is a good person who is not Jewish then they are worthy of more praise then the Jew who is wicked at heart. True to say that their are evil Jews; the ones who only come out for Yom Kippur in order to repent of their sins only to spend the next year sinning anyway so they can then come next Yom Kippur to ask forgivness all over again. I am sure you Christians have a similar problem at Christmas time, yes? However the above verse in the "New Testament" comes into direct conflict with the Torah (or "Old Testament" as Christians call it).

Click to expand...

No, that is not what it is saying at all. It is making the point that there were at that time Jews who were teachers of the Law who failed to live up to their own teachings. Now, to be honest this happens in the church, too. We have people who teach 'abc' but live lifestyles that are, in comparison, 'xyz', if you see my meaning. It goes on to say that even the uncircumcised act better than that - should they be called circumcised, in comparison to you who fail to do what you yourselves teach? They will pass judgement on you because, even though they do not have the law as you do they are doing what the law says, and living according to it.

You can't just be a Jew outwardly, says Paul - you have to make it the very essence of your life and what you teach must be what you practice in public and private. You must be a Jew inwardly in every way that you live, not just in what you teach others- remember the words of the Sh'ma? Nowadays we would call these people hypocrites - this is what Paul is speaking against. I've no idea at all what Christmas has to do with this debate!!! ???

"G-d said to Abraham, "And as for you, you shall keep My convenant - you and your offpsring after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant which you shall keep between Me and you and your offpring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be a sign of the convenant between Me and you. At the age of eight days every male among you shall be circumcised, throughout their generations - he that is born in the household or purchased with money from any stranger who is not not of your offspring. He that is born in your household or purchased with your money shall surely be circumcised. Thus, My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. An uncircumcised male who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin - that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has invalidated My covenant." - Genesis 17:9-14

Click to expand...

Far from the above post being in contradiction to what I have quoted here, it is actually supporting what Paul was saying. He was, in effect, telling these guys just what this passage means - that they have to respect the Law and live the Law - all day, every day. There is no place for teachers of the Law who cannot, themselves, obey it.

His comment about circumcising Gentiles is a typical Jewish way of responding. To the charge that the teachers were hypocrites, Paul throws his hands in the air says, oi vey, my sons, even the Gentiles are not hypocrites like you lot! Even though they haven't got the law, they do better job at keeping it than you! You want that we should circumcise them? ie in comparison, the Gentiles were more worthy of being circumcised because they kept the law better than the teachers. But their circumcision is of the heart, not the circumcision of the Covenant in the flesh, as the Jews have. These were comments made not to every Jew but to a few hypocrites who were lording it over others, and I'm sure we, in Christianity, can point to identical situations in the church.

Crikey, why am I telling a Jew how to read the words of one of his own countrymen!

Heber said:

Has any part of the church repented of its institutionalised view that it is the new Israel and the consequent cause of that, that G_d has rejected the Jews and favours the church?

Click to expand...

The issue is a little deeper than that- it appears that although some Medieval scholars favoured a replacement theology, it was never enshrined as a de fide dogma- which is a good thing. Other scholars throughout history have always rejected a replacement theology. As far as I know the RCC has never counted replacement theology as a dogma that one must hold, and certainly it has been rejected outright in recent times. There's some remarkably interesting Catholic perspectives in the "Hebrew Catholic" journal. Basically it is said that the statements out of Vatican II completely rule out replacement theology.

I do, however, think that replacement theology is perhaps favoured in the EO churches, although again, not dogmatised- just popular.

The Calvinists usually embrace replacement theology, and neo-Calvinists are the biggest influence on American Evangelicalism today- so I worry a little about that. I think a lazy understanding of Augustine's "City of God" is what has led to people developing a replacement theology.

I know the RCC has 'forgiven' the Jews for killing Yeshua and has repented of its own actions but it still seems to favour itself, along with many other denominations, as the new Israel. See 'The Church is Israel Now' by Charles D Proven which has a distinct RCC flaour to it.

Click to expand...

Provan was not a Catholic, he was an independant writer who was educated at Bob Jones university and attended a Presbyterian chruch until the day he died. Again- Calvinist.

If you really want to get to the bottom of good Catholic thinkers on this subject, see if you can dig up some of the works of Cardinal Lustiger (a Jew) and check it out. Interesting.

Check out this quote from him from here:

“The Church appears in Jerusalem, afer Pentecost, as an "assembly" kahal in Hebrew, ecclesia in Greek. it is unthinkable that she would claim to replace Israel. She is not another Israel, but the very, fulfillment, in Israel, of God's plan...The Church is then faced with the question of the extent to which these pagans who share in Israel's Election should be obliged to observe the laws which are Israel’s trust, responsibility, and privilege. To what extent should these pagans be associated with the totality of Israel’s mission? This is the major problem facing the first generations of Christians, as all the New Testament writings testify...In this early Church, the status of the pagan-Christian assemblies begins to be established. They are not dispensed from observing the Law- if the pagans did not observe the Law, they would have no share in either Israel’s Election or grace. But the gift of the Holy Spirit, a grace of the messiah, enables pagans to observe the law differently from Israel, which remains charged with this “delightful” burden of observance."

I don't want to harp on it too much, but Hebrew Christians seem to have a lot of very positive and constructive things to say about being Jewish and a follower of Jesus. Sadly, many Messianic groups would rather have us be silenced. I think- and I'm sure you would agree- we need to work together to bring God's will and the mind of Messiah into our world.

I am aware, in my studies, of documents that would disagree a little with your assertion about the Catholic Church's view. See Agius A, Interfaith Dialogue - The teaching of the Catholic Church (Catholic Communications Service) London 2002 pp31 -32 It shows that the Church is the new People of God, although, paradoxically, it goes on to warn against teaching that Jews are not rejected by God.

As an aside on this see Peakes' Commentary, page 721, column 2 at the top; this book was for many years a standard commentary used in Bible colleges all over the place.

I think- and I'm sure you would agree- we need to work together to bring God's will and the mind of Messiah into our world.

Click to expand...

Amen!

Tanakh - that is a lot to try and summarise in a response. I will do so but at the moment, here, it is time for tea and then I am out tonight at a meeting.

I'll post again later tonight, GMT.

What advantage is there then in being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every respect. [For] in the first place, they were entrusted with the utterances of G-d. What if some were unfaithful? Will their infidelity nullify the fidelity of G-d? Of course not! G-d must be true, though every human being is a liar....

That about sums it up... it is always and should always be to compared our relationship to God. Our infidelity does not nulify the fidelity of God.

Tanakh said:

"There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks G-d. All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, [there is not] even one. Their throats are open graves; they decieve with their tongues; the venom of asps is on their lips; their mouths are full of bitter cursing. Their feet are quick to shed blood; ruin and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace they know not. There is no fear of G-d before their eyes."

Click to expand...

As I have just said - everyone born of woman, although we are known by G_d before we were even in our mother's womb (Jeremiah 1) - develops a propensity to choose to sin - here that choice is graphically set out! They live and act as if they do not know G_d. This is almost a statement that goes along with Yesha'yahu 29:9-16 - thinking that G_d cannot see or know what is happening and the choices people make of their own free will that violate his Law. They choose to stupidly ignore the offer of grace that G_d holds out because they cannot understand his word, it is so alien to them!

Now we know that what the law says is addressed to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world stand accountable to G-d, since no human being will be justified in His sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin." - Romans 3:1-20

Click to expand...

All this ties in with the latter testament because G_d provided, as I have already said, a means to not only say sorry for your sins, but also to know that the punishment that should have been yours has been taken up by his son. There is little difference here, in embryo, and concept, from the High Priest laying his hands on the ass and transferring all the sins of Israel to the ass and then sending it to death in the desert. Yeshua, Christians believe, was the scape-goat and was sent out side of the city to die. In offering himself in this way all the sins of the world were transferred to him (as were the sins of the whole of Israel to the ass), and he died. The key difference, however, is the belief that Messiah rose from the dead, just as your choice of scripture shows.

This, in a nut shell, is what the latter testament is saying.

Heber said:

I am aware, in my studies, of documents that would disagree a little with your assertion about the Catholic Church's view. See Agius A, Interfaith Dialogue - The teaching of the Catholic Church (Catholic Communications Service) London 2002 pp31 -32 It shows that the Church is the new People of God, although, paradoxically, it goes on to warn against teaching that Jews are not rejected by God.

Click to expand...

Indeed, as I said, there are comments that can be interpreted in many ways and comments that fall on all sides of the spectrum of this topic, but there has never been a "de fide" dogma that states that replacement theology is the doctrine of the church that one must believe. The paradox you notice is the paradox of the NT too- the church is the new Temple and thus the new people etc etc. However, there is no mention anywhere in the NT (and this I know is your position too) that the church replaces Israel. It grows out from Israel and the branches that by unbelief have been cut off will be grafted back on. I think the RCC takes these mysteries and puts them side by side, allowing people to think on it themselves.

As an aside on this see Peakes' Commentary, page 721, column 2 at the top; this book was for many years a standard commentary used in Bible colleges all over the place.

Click to expand...

Yeah...again....Peakes is a classic almost-liberal Reformed commentary. I was never much of a fan of it.

I have some real doozies that show that the more Reformed the churches are, the more they are open to replacement theology. Oddly enough though, I met a hyper-Reformed theologian last year you outright rejected it. I told him that was a good thing.