Is the Court of the Gentiles a bad place to be?

[Yahudim]

Hi KC,

Messianic Judaism is located directly between two large warring nations (let the reader understand). This is ground zero. We get all kinds of combatants, as well as the wounded, coming here for a fight, some for loving care, some for both and some because they lost their meds and their way home. It makes for interesting campfire conversations. I presume that you have seen, 'The Longest Day'.

Different people that you will encounter here come from different backgrounds and continue to endure many trials. In some cases, much like others involved in continuous combat, we take on a certain 'gallows humor', if you will. Don't take it personally until you want to. Mine tends toward the theatre of the absurd, wrapped in hyperbole. When I get to that juncture, most people that know me, set their arguments down and slowly back away. The bomb squad and the medics arrive and I'm better in no time at all!

In any case, most members are deeply committed to a particular doctrinal framework. Surprised? Take us all with a grain of salt and be careful of our feet. They are made of clay.

May best wishes and fervent prayer follow you in your journeys. I am at your service chaver (brother).

Phillip

Tal, mercy, and et. To learn is why I'm here. Et - I agree, I need to follow Tal's lead to learn a bit more. Mercy, what I was TRYING to say is NOT that I would disrespect any Law, but (at least at this time) I take the Sabbath in my Savior. In that sense, I rest from my own works. I do NOT believe that the seventh day of rest has ever been changed to another day, just in case you're wondering... However, I will plead guilty of maybe (and I hate to use this word...) "spiritualizing" the Sabbath well beyond anything that you yourself would accept. As to the literal days of the week, each is the same to me and I only believe that the brethren should meet together regularly. I would not fight or disparage any day that they choose - but more on that later. I really do have to run off again. Fire away. How else can I learn???

Blessings.

 

[kcmonseysr]

from mercy: "If you dishonor Sabbath, you run the risk of being in bondage again".

Please look at what you are saying here mercy. Are you not in effect saying that if I do something wrong (i.e. in this case, "dishonor Sabbath") then I "risk" being in bondage again. I will note that you equivocate just a bit by saying "run the risk", but I do think that you are saying that I WILL be in bondage again. Now, if this is so, how does this, even I allow some wiggle room for the "risk" concept, reconcile itself with the unconditional unilateral promises made to Abraham? And, no, I am not here trying to claim anything beyond 'being grafted in', but it seems to me that you are in this matter coming very close to making the same case against me that the "replacement" "theology" types use against the nation of Israel. I.e., "Israel sinned. G-d took away their blessings. G-d then gave Israel's blessings over to the church". I do not believe at all (at least I hope) that that is what you believe you are saying, but it does seem that you are in effect actually saying that.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now, thanks to you and to some others in this forum, I am beginning, just a little (my head is as thick as anyone else's) to grasp the importance of Torah to you as, if I understand you all correctly, the constitution of the Land/Nation of Israel, and you all are very concerned that you share in all of the blessings therein. Indeed, blessings in the Land for the Jews were clearly tied to obeying it, and I agree with your assessment of it in that frame of reference. But I did not understand that this was such an issue yet today, as I was not raised in it for one thing; and when I did look at it, part of me was looking at it through the lens of this portion of Scripture:

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. Gal 3:15-20 NASB​

So, from my viewpoint, my love of Torah is not so much to do with blessings in the Land (please, no, I'm not claiming any for myself), as it is that I view it as a written revelation of the Holiness of G-d, and I find this facet to be truly beautiful. [Yes, it also shows me my sinfulness, which I then acknowledge and own up to before G-d. And when I finally come to my senses on that matter and repent of it, I ask for His forgiveness and for Him to change me, form me, so that I no longer am tempted in that sin. This work is far from completed in me, and will not be completed in me until He finishes it sometime just before I enter into His presence - and not while I dwell in this present tent.]

I don't think that many here are familiar with the lens through which I am looking, and, just as I need to learn more about 'where you are coming from', so too do you need to learn more about me and 'mine'. Like it or not. Tough. Get over it.

One of my own unanswered-to-my-own-satisfaction questions, even prior this forum, is: How do believing Jews today fit into the Son of David's Millennial Kingdom?

I understand and fully endorse that the Jews will indeed inherit all of the promises and blessings unilaterally promised to them by G-d to Abraham, which promises were then directly passed on to Isaac and then to Jacob/Israel and on to their descendants. My understanding is that the Lord Himself will refine all of Israel (this will not be a pleasant time) and draw or force all of Israel back to the Land, and will keep and protect all of Israel throughout all of the time of Jacob's troubles, i.e. the seven years of Tribulation. I believe that the present church, that mystery in times past and formed on Pentecost at the time of Yeshua's disciples filling with the Holy Spirit, will be taken away by Messiah to be with Him, as (or to be) His bride, prior to this seven year period - and that this current church includes in equal standing both believing Jews (Messianic and whatever…) and believing Gentiles (even if some of them are dumber than a rock). I.e., all of those who have believed/trusted in the finished work of Yeshua on the tree. So then, my unanswered-to-myself question: are these current believing Jews (you all, in this forum) going to be completed (only for lack of a better term at the moment, please forgive me and withhold any spears that are raised) as the bride of Messiah? No small honor this, methinks. Or, are these Jews (you all), going to separate (be separated) from this body, this bride, to then re-mix (I'm sorry, in some sense you are already mixed in with the goy within the body of Messiah - truth does not have to make you happy) with the Jews who have been refined during the Tribulation and those Jews who went to sleep prior to the church age?

Now, to me, this question is probably as equally theoretical as your question on "who will be allowed to partake of the Passover meal when the temple is restored?", so I am not trying to be contentious. Except that it is hard not to be just a little contentious, so I must ask those who are asking the "Passover" question: Since Messiah is already your Passover Lamb that has been sacrificed once and for all, do you really want to partake of the flesh of a year old member of a flock of sheep - if indeed sin offerings are again offered in the Millennial Temple? Would that not be just a little insulting to Messiah??? Just asking.

But look, it seems to me so far that most of you, in your zeal, are already dividing and divided from the body of Messiah, splitting Jew away from Gentile in the body. And this, at this time in history - at a time when I (in my never to be humble opinion) strongly feel that the 'age of the gentiles' is coming to an end, and at a time when so many gentiles within the church are so ignorant that they know little or no Tanach at all (much to their shame) and they need (maybe more than 'want' - I yield on that) the guidance and teaching that can only come from believing Jews - at a critical time when unity is needed, we find ourselves divided. At this crucial time, do we amuse(?) ourselves over who might eat a Passover Sacrifice sometime in the future?

I can understand the Jews wanting nothing to do with the gentile churches. All I can say on that subject is what I once said to a new Jewish friend at his cousin's wedding: "I can assure you that Martin Luther has since changed his opinion on the matter". Enough said, you know the history better than I do. And my late-night-long-day-and-I'm-tired rant is over.

And yes, my new friend, I did look at eSword (thank you for the suggestion), but I did not download it. I have quite a bit of Bible software on my computer already, and it didn't seem that this new one could do anything additional for me. But I do really appreciate your taking the time to give me the "short version(s)" for two reasons: first, they are very helpful and, second, I'm getting too old and long in tooth to begin Yeshiva and hack my way through all of the customs (figuratively speaking only). Yes, I am aware that some old sages did just that at amazing ages, but I am not up to their standards and can only run short distances at a time, and even that is at the speed of a turtle. So, again, thanks much Talmidim, and I am trying to digest and assimilate your suggestion on how to approach the questions. Good advice, I believe. But please be patient here, as my digestion isn't any faster that the rest of me, and time must pass and mistakes must be made... [P.S., someday, in the appropriate venue, explain to me what a "non-Trinitarian" Messianic is. Yes, I did look at the statement of faith on "your" website, but I am confused by your stated belief in the deity of each of the three. So, what I am wondering (someday) is "how does that work?"]

Blessings on each and every one of you here.

 

[kcmonseysr]

Hi tal. I was so caught up in editing my post that I didn't see you there. Shalom, my friend. I'm still awake because I'm old, retired, unscheduled and still going on the earlier coffee. What's your excuse???

Philip, my brother - after reading your post, I edited this reply, giving a very involved story as to what is behind my thanks to you that I am now giving for revealing to me the "rules of this family", and then through the magic of my fat fingers, I lost the whole thing, and my mind is too tired to re-create it. I'm sorry, but please believe it was a good story, more fully explaining the depth of my appreciation. Really.

Shalom,

Ken

 

[Gottservant]

The Gentiles are blessed in the court, but they never grasp the meaning of the blessing.

Jews are free to enter the court, but they are never free to enjoy the blessing.

If this is a snare to you, like anything, you must avoid it.

 

[Messianic Jewboy]

from mercy: "If you dishonor Sabbath, you run the risk of being in bondage again".

Please look at what you are saying here mercy. Are you not in effect saying that if I do something wrong (i.e. in this case, "dishonor Sabbath") then I "risk" being in bondage again. I will note that you equivocate just a bit by saying "run the risk", but I do think that you are saying that I WILL be in bondage again. Now, if this is so, how does this, even I allow some wiggle room for the "risk" concept, reconcile itself with the unconditional unilateral promises made to Abraham? And, no, I am not here trying to claim anything beyond 'being grafted in', but it seems to me that you are in this matter coming very close to making the same case against me that the "replacement" "theology" types use against the nation of Israel. I.e., "Israel sinned. G-d took away their blessings. G-d then gave Israel's blessings over to the church". I do not believe at all (at least I hope) that that is what you believe you are saying, but it does seem that you are in effect actually saying that.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now, thanks to you and to some others in this forum, I am beginning, just a little (my head is as thick as anyone else's) to grasp the importance of Torah to you as, if I understand you all correctly, the constitution of the Land/Nation of Israel, and you all are very concerned that you share in all of the blessings therein. Indeed, blessings in the Land for the Jews were clearly tied to obeying it, and I agree with your assessment of it in that frame of reference. But I did not understand that this was such an issue yet today, as I was not raised in it for one thing; and when I did look at it, part of me was looking at it through the lens of this portion of Scripture:

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. Gal 3:15-20 NASB​

So, from my viewpoint, my love of Torah is not so much to do with blessings in the Land (please, no, I'm not claiming any for myself), as it is that I view it as a written revelation of the Holiness of G-d, and I find this facet to be truly beautiful. [Yes, it also shows me my sinfulness, which I then acknowledge and own up to before G-d. And when I finally come to my senses on that matter and repent of it, I ask for His forgiveness and for Him to change me, form me, so that I no longer am tempted in that sin. This work is far from completed in me, and will not be completed in me until He finishes it sometime just before I enter into His presence - and not while I dwell in this present tent.]

I don't think that many here are familiar with the lens through which I am looking, and, just as I need to learn more about 'where you are coming from', so too do you need to learn more about me and 'mine'. Like it or not. Tough. Get over it.

One of my own unanswered-to-my-own-satisfaction questions, even prior this forum, is: How do believing Jews today fit into the Son of David's Millennial Kingdom?

I understand and fully endorse that the Jews will indeed inherit all of the promises and blessings unilaterally promised to them by G-d to Abraham, which promises were then directly passed on to Isaac and then to Jacob/Israel and on to their descendants. My understanding is that the Lord Himself will refine all of Israel (this will not be a pleasant time) and draw or force all of Israel back to the Land, and will keep and protect all of Israel throughout all of the time of Jacob's troubles, i.e. the seven years of Tribulation. I believe that the present church, that mystery in times past and formed on Pentecost at the time of Yeshua's disciples filling with the Holy Spirit, will be taken away by Messiah to be with Him, as (or to be) His bride, prior to this seven year period - and that this current church includes in equal standing both believing Jews (Messianic and whatever…) and believing Gentiles (even if some of them are dumber than a rock). I.e., all of those who have believed/trusted in the finished work of Yeshua on the tree. So then, my unanswered-to-myself question: are these current believing Jews (you all, in this forum) going to be completed (only for lack of a better term at the moment, please forgive me and withhold any spears that are raised) as the bride of Messiah? No small honor this, methinks. Or, are these Jews (you all), going to separate (be separated) from this body, this bride, to then re-mix (I'm sorry, in some sense you are already mixed in with the goy within the body of Messiah - truth does not have to make you happy) with the Jews who have been refined during the Tribulation and those Jews who went to sleep prior to the church age?

Now, to me, this question is probably as equally theoretical as your question on "who will be allowed to partake of the Passover meal when the temple is restored?", so I am not trying to be contentious. Except that it is hard not to be just a little contentious, so I must ask those who are asking the "Passover" question: Since Messiah is already your Passover Lamb that has been sacrificed once and for all, do you really want to partake of the flesh of a year old member of a flock of sheep - if indeed sin offerings are again offered in the Millennial Temple? Would that not be just a little insulting to Messiah??? Just asking.

But look, it seems to me so far that most of you, in your zeal, are already dividing and divided from the body of Messiah, splitting Jew away from Gentile in the body. And this, at this time in history - at a time when I (in my never to be humble opinion) strongly feel that the 'age of the gentiles' is coming to an end, and at a time when so many gentiles within the church are so ignorant that they know little or no Tanach at all (much to their shame) and they need (maybe more than 'want' - I yield on that) the guidance and teaching that can only come from believing Jews - at a critical time when unity is needed, we find ourselves divided. At this crucial time, do we amuse(?) ourselves over who might eat a Passover Sacrifice sometime in the future?

I can understand the Jews wanting nothing to do with the gentile churches. All I can say on that subject is what I once said to a new Jewish friend at his cousin's wedding: "I can assure you that Martin Luther has since changed his opinion on the matter". Enough said, you know the history better than I do. And my late-night-long-day-and-I'm-tired rant is over.

And yes, my new friend, I did look at eSword (thank you for the suggestion), but I did not download it. I have quite a bit of Bible software on my computer already, and it didn't seem that this new one could do anything additional for me. But I do really appreciate your taking the time to give me the "short version(s)" for two reasons: first, they are very helpful and, second, I'm getting too old and long in tooth to begin Yeshiva and hack my way through all of the customs (figuratively speaking only). Yes, I am aware that some old sages did just that at amazing ages, but I am not up to their standards and can only run short distances at a time, and even that is at the speed of a turtle. So, again, thanks much Talmidim, and I am trying to digest and assimilate your suggestion on how to approach the questions. Good advice, I believe. But please be patient here, as my digestion isn't any faster that the rest of me, and time must pass and mistakes must be made... [P.S., someday, in the appropriate venue, explain to me what a "non-Trinitarian" Messianic is. Yes, I did look at the statement of faith on "your" website, but I am confused by your stated belief in the deity of each of the three. So, what I am wondering (someday) is "how does that work?"]

Blessings on each and every one of you here.

Just to comment... There are very few believing Jews on this forum which is important to your post especially Romans 11. I agree with your view for the most part pertaining to the promises(not yet fulfilled) for the children of Israel.

Dr F from Ariel Ministries(a Messianic Jew) has a good audio series on the future restoration of Israel.

 

[mercy1061]

Tal, mercy, and et. To learn is why I'm here. Et - I agree, I need to follow Tal's lead to learn a bit more. Mercy, what I was TRYING to say is NOT that I would disrespect any Law, but (at least at this time) I take the Sabbath in my Savior. In that sense, I rest from my own works. I do NOT believe that the seventh day of rest has ever been changed to another day, just in case you're wondering... However, I will plead guilty of maybe (and I hate to use this word...) "spiritualizing" the Sabbath well beyond anything that you yourself would accept. As to the literal days of the week, each is the same to me and I only believe that the brethren should meet together regularly. I would not fight or disparage any day that they choose - but more on that later. I really do have to run off again. Fire away. How else can I learn???

Blessings.

Just a kind suggestion: When you respond to me, you may wish to only respond to me, so you do not "mix" my thoughts with others. This way I can answer your questions more directly.

 

[mercy1061]

Mercy - I know that I'm a little slow, so I'm just mildly curious. As I was getting out of my car about half an hour after reading the opening line of your last post ("...Okay, I am glad you have had time to carefully consider your response to my questions.) I noticed that my clothes were damp. When I got into better light, I realized that I was wiping dripping sarcasm off myself. Was that from you????

Blessings,

Ken

You seem to have a "humble" spirit, which is good. To answer your question, I was not showing "sarcasm" when I was glad that you took some time to ponder over my question to offer me a well thought out response; I was giving you a compliment. However, you still may want to take some additional time to ponder over my questions and offer a more deeply thought out response to my questions.

 

[kcmonseysr]

Hi mercy. As I'm sure you well know, one of the weaknesses of this type of communication is the lack of being able to see any non-verbal clues or to hear a tone of voice. Sorry I misunderstood your compliment (thank you, by the way). It was because I had just told you that I would answer you in a day or two and then replied in such a short time that I was afraid that you felt shortchanged a bit, and, hence, maybe a little sarcastic in return. Mea Culpa. I'll try not to be so sensitive next time.

I WILL try to be more focused on one-person-at-a-time answers and questions. I was making what is perhaps a newbie mistake and (attempting to) swinging at all of the balls at the same time. In return, would it be all right with you if we narrowed this even a bit further, and if I just responded to ONE of your questions at a time? Of course, facets of one question may spill over into another, but I would like to attempt to focus on only one. That said, would you pick which question is the most important to you, so that we can get (back?) on track? Thanks.

Blessings,

Ken

 

[mercy1061]

from mercy: "If you dishonor Sabbath, you run the risk of being in bondage again".

Please look at what you are saying here mercy. Are you not in effect saying that if I do something wrong (i.e. in this case, "dishonor Sabbath") then I "risk" being in bondage again.

Yes. If you were living in ancient times, Nehemiah would arrest you. Just because Nehemiah is not here to enforce "justice", does not mean you have the right to dishonor Sabbath;

Neh 9
13 “You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. 14You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses. 15 In their hunger you gave them bread from heaven and in their thirst you brought them water from the rock; you told them to go in and take possession of the land you had sworn with uplifted hand to give them.

28 “But as soon as they were at rest, they again did what was evil in your sight. Then you abandoned them to the hand of their enemies so that they ruled over them. And when they cried out to you again, you heard from heaven, and in your compassion you delivered them time after time.


36 “But see, we are slaves today, slaves in the land you gave our ancestors so they could eat its fruit and the other good things it produces. 37 Because of our sins, its abundant harvest goes to the kings you have placed over us. They rule over our bodies and our cattle as they please. We are in great distress.

I will note that you equivocate just a bit by saying "run the risk", but I do think that you are saying that I WILL be in bondage again.

My name is not Nehemiah, my name is "mercy", so in the spirit of "mercy", I would hope you decide to keep the Sabbath holy.

Now, if this is so, how does this, even I allow some wiggle room for the "risk" concept, reconcile itself with the unconditional unilateral promises made to Abraham?

I posted scriptures above to show you that the ancient jews were slaves living in the promise land. In the days of Nehemiah they dishonored the Sabbath among other things. So they still inherited the land, but were slaves while living in it.

And, no, I am not here trying to claim anything beyond 'being grafted in', but it seems to me that you are in this matter coming very close to making the same case against me that the "replacement" "theology" types use against the nation of Israel. I.e., "Israel sinned. G-d took away their blessings. G-d then gave Israel's blessings over to the church". I do not believe at all (at least I hope) that that is what you believe you are saying, but it does seem that you are in effect actually saying that.

Actually many who follow the replacement theology, offer many of the same arguments that you offer to excuse them for not properly honoring Sabbath. One famous excuse, they say "Sabbath law is not found in the new testament". Another famous excuse "Yeshua is my Sabbath, so I rest in him". They do not understand that when the ancient jews received rest from their enemies, they began to dishonor Sabbath, worship idols and believe lies or false doctrines; they also married foreignors; Nehemiah discusses these sins in the book of Nehemiah.

Now, thanks to you and to some others in this forum, I am beginning, just a little (my head is as thick as anyone else's) to grasp the importance of Torah to you as, if I understand you all correctly, the constitution of the Land/Nation of Israel, and you all are very concerned that you share in all of the blessings therein. Indeed, blessings in the Land for the Jews were clearly tied to obeying it, and I agree with your assessment of it in that frame of reference. But I did not understand that this was such an issue yet today, as I was not raised in it for one thing; and when I did look at it, part of me was looking at it through the lens of this portion of Scripture:

"Torah kingdom law" applied to Abraham who was a gentile, not a jew. So your argument is defeated because of our founding father Abraham.

Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.

One thing you must understand about PHARISEE Shaul is that he NEVER contradicts himself, even when it may sound like he saying something different. The US constitution has amendments that were added, the amendments were added to better understand the original constitution. You know in the US, a "tree branch" of government tell the people what the original constitution means; although they were not living when the constituion was first ratified. These men have the audacity and the gull to interpret a constitution that they never wrote! The constitution explicitly says that "all men were created equal", later men added amendments that stated that certain people were not fully human, thus they are not treated equally with the rest of the people; hence slavery was justified in the "land of the free, home of the brave".......

The good thing about "torah kingdom law" the AUTHOR of the torah and legal constitution that has already been ratified is yet alive; so why do we still need a "tree branch" of government to add amendments? It would be far more profitable to ask the Author what he meant by what he said, the Author told Moses his secrets; the secrets from Yeshua belong only to the prophets. Like PHARISEE Shaul already told you, nothing is added or taken away from a constitution or covenant that has already been ratified; if amendments or if anything is added, it is added to better understand or to shed light on the Author's intent in his letter to the people.

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. Gal 3:15-20 NASB

The promise was given to Abraham, the covenant has already been raitifed; nothing is added. However the law was added to better understand the promises given to Abraham. Yes, you may possess the land, but you may be oppressed and treated like slaves, if you do not do what Abraham did, when the covenant was ratified. Nothing is added, the law was added to better understand the original document, so that nothing is actually added when it is further explained.

John 8

39 They answered him, “Our father is Avraham.” Yeshua replied, “If you are children of Avraham, then do the things Avraham did!
​

So, from my viewpoint, my love of Torah is not so much to do with blessings in the Land (please, no, I'm not claiming any for myself), as it is that I view it as a written revelation of the Holiness of G-d, and I find this facet to be truly beautiful. [Yes, it also shows me my sinfulness, which I then acknowledge and own up to before G-d. And when I finally come to my senses on that matter and repent of it, I ask for His forgiveness and for Him to change me, form me, so that I no longer am tempted in that sin. This work is far from completed in me, and will not be completed in me until He finishes it sometime just before I enter into His presence - and not while I dwell in this present tent.]

Ancient Israel did not need to leave their tents during the Sabbath, when they wandered in the wilderness. Of course, PHARISEE Shaul was a tentmaker. If you dwell in a tent, you depend on PHARISEE Shaul for your shelter; so you should also obey the teachings of the ancient pharisees to better understand "torah kingdom law".

I don't think that many here are familiar with the lens through which I am looking, and, just as I need to learn more about 'where you are coming from', so too do you need to learn more about me and 'mine'. Like it or not. Tough. Get over it.

Some of us don't need glasses when we study "torah kingdom law", because we have 20/20 vision. You may wish to visit the "eye doctor" or optometrist before you read the ancient scriptures; this may help you better understand "torah kingdom law".

 

[kcmonseysr]

Mpossoff (Mark?) - Thanks much for the encouragement and heads-up. I am familiar with Dr. F and his excellent Ariel ministries. My close friend and brother born in the Bronx, who did aliyah in the 70s, married a very wonderful sabra and who now lives in Haifa, came to know Yeshua (again, in the 70s) at one of Arnold's (first?) summer camps in upstate NY. He has also kindly given me similar warning as yours, so I doubly respect your sage advice.

I have Dr. F's book on Israelology, as well as a couple of his commentaries, and I occasionally prowl his web site. The only problems that I have with them is that, especially since I have no one up here in NEPA is overly interested in reaching the Jews (not hostile, more like lukewarm - is that a good thing??) so I have no one in the "real, as in face-to-face" world, with whom to discuss what I think I am learning in order to test if I am understanding correctly - as measured by the Scriptures. Add that to the fact that some of Arnold's insights stretch my brain beyond its comfort zone, and I find that I am walking alone (in regard to human companionship to bounce ideas off of) in the forest. Couple with that, that my learning curve involves trying to get a large picture with a few markers to (hopefully) keep me from going through the woods in circles, and then I try to disassemble that picture and put back together again just to see: one, can I?, and, two, does it still look the same and if not, why not? Hence, it's a long and hard process for me.

So, please keep me in sight here.

Blessings,

Ken

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If the Temple was still present and as a non Jew you are washed in His blood and co-heirs is the Court of the Gentiles a bad place to be?

If I may say...

If I was going on a trip down to Florida (Sea World or Disneyworld ) and we ended up stranded (after driving from California ) in Kansas at a hotel - with us staying there for sometime and then exploring the world of Kansas - we could ask questions such as "Is this a bad place to be? Couldn't we live with this?" and there would be answers given to that general question as if it stands on its own.

You'd answer saying the things that could be made of the trip, the people you get to connect with, the scenery of Kansas being amazing...and having family time developed (even though the kids may be limited in fun due to how they were more blessed by Disney imagery or Sea World).

Nonetheless, to ask the question "Can't we live with this?" would be the WRONG question by itself since it forgets the original context.....as the real issue was what the original destination was and whether or not things got off course rather than thinking that where people were currently at was what was always intended.

The same thing goes for the dynamic of the Court of the Gentiles and asking if it'd be a bad place to be - as I think it leaves out the perspective of seeing whether or not GOD ever sanctioned it and wanted it to be in place in the first place....


I think it's interesting to consider that there was never a Court of Gentiles in the original tabernacle. For it was not just Gentiles - but even other everyday Hebrews included. The area known as the “Court of the Gentiles” was open to all, Jews and Gentiles, males or females, people of any class. Both Jews and Gentiles would congregate there - with the only exception being women during their menstrual period. Many activities went on in there, including the selling of sacrificial animals, teaching, bathing for purification, and even the ability to sleep.

• Court of the Gentiles in the Jewish Temple: clearing up misconceptions

For a brief excerpt:

Officially, there was no such thing as the “Court of the Gentiles”. That’s right, nowhere in the ancient literature, be it the Bible, the New Testament, the writing of Josephus or in Talmud does one find such a term. Instead, what one finds is an area called the “Outer Court”, by far the largest section of the Temple complex. Although there’s disagreement between scholars on the exact location of various Temple boundaries, this Outer Court was within the Temple grounds, but wasn’t within the Temple area reserved for Jews, which was surrounded by a very low wall/balustrade (sorek) that was only four feet high (so one could see over it), with large openings guarded by Levites. This court was not just for the Gentiles, however – it was open to anyone. On the other hand, the inner Temple precincts were relatively small and could not contain all the visiting Jews at once (especially during high holy days), so most Jewish worshipers probably ended up in the Outer Court anyway. The sole reason it is known today as the “Court of the Gentiles” was simply because Gentiles could go no farther than this area, while Jews, provided they were ritually pure, could proceed across the balustrade to the next level.

​

..............The various walls (soreks) that divided the various courts in the Temple were not the so called spiritual “wall of hostility” spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 2:14. Were that the case, one may also claim the High Priest was hostile against his fellow priests and Levites, priests were set against the Israelites, and male Israelites were hostile against Jewish women. Instead, the divisions in the Temple simply signified the different levels of holiness. Israelites could not go into the area where priests worked, and priests could not enter the Holy of Holies, where only the High Priest could enter, but no one was intrinsically better than his or her fellow

Of course, on the same token, the original tabernacle set up in Exodus and later the Temple designed by David/made by Solomon did not seem to have type of Court for Gentiles. Yeshua had a lot of problems with others who'd take what was meant to help others pray - and turn it into a house for profit ( more shared here and here in #61 , #72 , #73 ).

After arriving in Jerusalem, Jesus spent time each day teaching in the Temple courts. The Temple was built as a series of concentric spaces each one more holy than the next, beginning with the Outer Court and culminating in the Holy of Holies, the innermost sanctum of the Temple:

1) The Outer Court (i.e. the “Court of Gentiles), accessible to almost everyone.
2) The Court of Israelites, reserved for all Jewish males who were ritually pure.
3) The Court of Prayer, also known as the Court of Women, not because it was only reserved for women, but because women could proceed no farther. Both men and women could enter this court, talk to priests, pray, observe the proceedings, bring their sacrifices. Women had a balcony built for them to separate them from the men.
4) The “Court of the Priests”, where only the priests could enter.
5) And the “Holy of Holies”, accessible only once a year by the High Priest.

And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: “‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations‘? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” (Mark 11:17)

The ministry of Jesus was always edgy and slightly counter-cultural and this is nowhere more apparent than when Jesus clears out the market in the Temple. Read about it in Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke19:45-48. ... a radical act by Jesus. By clearing the Temple, was Jesus condemning Judaism? No. He was condemning what Judaism had become, and the Jewish establishment that had allowed it to get to such a low point.

As said best elsewhere, "Jesus was angry that the holiness of the Temple was being violated by unscrupulousness money dealings, cheating and usury. Worshipers would come to the Temple with “pagan” money (i.e. money with images of pagan gods/emperors) to exchange it for the Temple currency which they could then present as a gift to G-d. And even though the Court of the Gentiles was very large, the Gentiles who came to worship G-d and to get a glimpse of the activities that went on in the Temple would find themselves crowded out by the various shops and tables of sellers peddling various items to visitors."

​

​

As another noted best:

Driving out those selling sacrificial animals and overturning the tables of the money changers was not an attempt to restore the temple to its Old Testament glory. Jesus had prophesied to a Samaritan woman that worship would not be linked to the temple in Jerusalem, “a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.” (John 4:21). Luke records that when he entered Jerusalem, Jesus wept over city’s coming destruction (Luke 19:41-44) in which the temple also would fall (Matt. 24:2). All of this would take place within four decades. Jesus knew that the temple was destined to be demolished. The kingdom he brought has no temple “because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.” (Rev. 21:22). Jesus primary concern could not have been the restoration of right temple worship.

I don’t want to underplay the religious exclusion which Jesus addressed in clearing the temple courts of this marketplace. The original blueprint for the temple did not include corralling women and Gentiles into separate courts, away from pious male Jews. However, this segregation had emerged and it was inside the courts designed for the excluded that Jesus displays such zeal. The fracas had the effect of opening up space for the “unclean” to enter. Matthew 21:14, “The blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he cured them,” directly follows Jesus driving out the money changers.

But Jesus was not just concerned with making it possible for the excluded to enter the temple area for a handful of years before its destruction. He was confronting another thread of power twisted together in the strands of authority ruling this part of the temple and giving us a picture of the coming kingdom.
​

​

Yeshua universalized a lot of things later to make clear His heart. Acts 7 comes to mind.


Stephen refutes the final charge, that he has spoken imroperly against the Temple (Acts 6:13-14), by showing that it was the people, not God, who wanted a dwelling place or house more substantial than the Tent of Witness or "Tabernacle" originally authorized in the Torah. The concept of the temple came into more view under the life of David---as seen in 2 Samuel 7:1-3 and 2 Samuel 7 ( 1 Chronicles 22:4-6 and 1 Chronicles 24-26 )- --- when it came to his desire for a physical temple for God. The Lord conceded....and of course, the centralized location of Temple had its benefits---especially as it concerned management. There were many benefits to having a mobile place of God's dwelling....a church that's based on the concept that church is not a building as much as the people/God's prescence within us.

In regards to Acts 7, Stephen seems to make the case that the Temple (as the Jews knew of it) was inferior to the Tabernacle..as seen in the case in Acts 7.

The Temple didn't have as much significance in the NT church with Hebraic Christians as it did with those in mainline Judaism. For we read that they met in homes, sure, but they also had a “third” place they seemed to frequent on a daily basis – the temple courts (Acts 2:46). While they may have been there to engage in actual temple worship on a daily basis ( Acts 3:1), it is more likely they turned the temple courtyard into the equivalent of a first-century "Starbucks" in order to gather as a community (e.g., Acts 5:12)...in honor of what God did in making them His new temple.

For others in the camp have noted, the first dwelling place God designed for Himself was a mobile home (a tabernacle) because He wanted to be on the move with His people. ....and as we see today, whenever we become focused solely on buildings rather than relationship, we end up not being able to do as Jesus did when he went to bring his message to places that others wouldn't go because they wouldn't go but to the Temple in Jerusalem. ...and the same mess also occurred with the Jews who had the OUTER symbolism of the Temple and yet they didn't have God's prescence..

John 4:19-26
​

19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

​

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
​

​

16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.


​

2 Corinthians 6:16
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

1 Corinthians 6:18-20
​

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

Ephesians 2:21
​

In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
​

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

some of you, why don't you consider and accept what those who were with Peter were amazed by: "And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also." (Acts 10:45-46 NASB) .....For it is also written: "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Gal 3:2-4 NASB).

Shalom

Hoping your time here is worthwhile - and although we've not met before, it's nice to meet you.

Concerning what you noted, I would say that you have a good grasp of what Messianic Judaism is truly about (even though I don't think many were necessarily advocating what you were pointing out) - but thanks for sharing nonetheless. It needs to be said as it's so easy to forget when it comes to knowing what it means to be a part of the Remnant of God and how the Spirit of the Lord is the one who works things out rather than us being qualified by other factors (some of this discussed more in-depth when it comes to Jews in the Disapora and the Gentiles whom Paul and Peter often sought to address - more shared here, here, here, here, and here....similar to things that were shared here in this thread at certain points). For it's so easy to lose sight of what it took to bring Jew AND Gentile together in the Lord by the Spirit of God...

The remnant in the center is spiritual Israel, made of believers of all nations. One does not replace the other.

ANd I think what a lot of people tend to fail in understanding is that the Israel of God parallels the one the Lord made in the Mosaic Covenant. For that Israel had those who were believers/ethnic Hebrews who served the Lord - and yet they spoke out frequently to those who either became Apostate Hebrews or agnostic Hebrews trying to lead the Israeli Government of their day (like Elijah and the Remnant against the prophets of Baal and the Hebrews in Deuterononmy being told how to handle others who went against God's covenant).

Within that you also had Gentiles who chose to convert/become adopted into Israelite culture - and they, once accepted, were treated as Israelis (i.e. Gentiles like Ruth, Rahab, Caleb - from the line of Esau but adopted into the tribe of Judah, etc.) - and then you also had Gentiles within the land who were physically in Israel but did not do the same...with the Lord having specific guidelines for them and yet the Lord had no issue with them living as they did so long as it was not sin - even giving them unclean meat in light of how the Hebrews alone were required to abstain from that due to being set apart (the stranger/foreigner who was to be treated with respect per Leviticus 19:33, Deuteronomy 14:21, Deuteronomy 23:16 and Exodus 22:20-22 amongst others ).

Granted, when it comes to the issue of foreigner, there were differing categories of foreigners - from those who were servants of the Lord and yet foreigners in Israel...to those who were foreigners who did not serve the Lord as their God. Some things for the foreigners who did not serve the Lord were not allowed - such as promoting witchcraft in Israel since that was something universal that was not allowed, be it for Hebrew or Foreigners - but on other things, the foreigners themselves did not have the same level of association as the Hebrews.

As it concerns other categories of foreigners, there were also those who were temprorary visitors, in the same way that you'd be either in another country as a tourist or on a business trip. You also had those who were residents thankful for the People of Israel/the area they resided and yet they may've not been devoted to serving the Lord - much in the same way that you had others like King Darius with Daniel or King Cyrus who helped the Jewish people return home in addition to being beloved by their subjects for the ways they treated others/allowed a significant deal of multiculturalism and supported a policy of multi-religious views to flourish.. and was well known for being "The Lord's Anointed One"/"God's Servant"/ "God's Shepherd" ( Isaiah 45:1-3 /Isaiah 44:27-28 (- more shared here in #1)according to Isaiah....or King Hiram who helped Solomon in His kingdom (1 Kings 9:13 2 Samuel 5 /1 Kings 5 /2 Chronicles 2 /2 Chronicles 2:10-12 ).

In all of that, there was never a category of "foreigner" that was equated to being a Hebrew who was called to do the same things at all points as the Hebrews were explictly called to do. It is a very black-and-white discussion - even though it's sadly the case that others may say otherwise. Some other things one can consider on the subject is the dynamic of what the actual terms in language mean when it comes to how "foreigner" was always meant to convey - and as tends to happen in many Hebrew Roots cults, the focus may go toward "Well, the Hebrew says this..." - despite where the Hebrew can have multiple meanings at times and what determines meaning primarily is the actual practice that surrounded it.

If you'd like the Hebrew definition of foreigner, one can go here. One can also go here, if they so choose, to Strangers and Gentiles - Jewish Virtual Library for a erudite discussion on the issue of what being a stranger meant.

That said - in going back to the issue of what differing categories of foreigners were present - you also had others outside of Israel who were also included amongst God's people/used to bless it - folks like Jethro being one of them ( who helped Moses, bringing with him Zipporah and her two sons - meeting at the "mount of God," where "Moses told him all that the Lord had done unto Pharaoh" Ex. 18:8 and they celebrated the Lord together - even though he had to go back to Midian - and then later on Jethro, observing the multiplicity of the duties devolving on Moses, advised him to appoint subordinate judges, rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens, to decide smaller matters, leaving only the weightier matters to be referred to Moses, to be laid before the Lord. ..and this advice Moses adopted Ex. 18 and it was made apart of Mosaic Code). In addition to Jethro would be others like the Rechabites, the Ethiopian EBED-MELECH who rescued Jeremiah from the dungeon/pit he was trapped in and was praised by the Lord for it(Jeremiah 38, Jeremiah 39 ) whereas Apostate Israelites tried to kill Jeremiah/harm others speaking against them were denounced sharply.

Out of all the foreigners, IMHO, Jethro is the most interesting. For Jethro stood outside of the Covenant Community...yet displayed uncanny knowledge of God. With Jethro, in Exodus 18, he was a priest of Midian (Exodus 3:1, Exodus 4:18)...and in light of the difficulty of both Egypt and the journey to Rephidim, Jethro's coming to meet Moses displays a relational posture of peace and encouragement, similar to when Aaron met Moses "at the mountain of God on his return from Midian (Exodus 4:27-31). Amazingly, after simply hearing about what the Lord had done on Israel's belalf, Jethro's words and actions represent a more faithful response than came from many of those who had experienced the events in Egypt (not to mention Egypt itself, as well as Amalek).

When he says, "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods" in verse 11, he echoes the purpose that the Lord said the plagues were to have for both Israel (Exodus 6:7) and Egypt (Exodus 7:5, Exodus 7:15). When Jethro brought burnt offerings and sacrifices and ate before God with Moses, Aaron and the elders, he prefigured the pattern of life that the Lord would reveal further at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 12:5-7). And as said before, Jethro was used by the Lord to help him find a faithful and workable way to have others bear the burden of judging the people and ensuring their well-being --His words becoming central to Israel's makeup in choosing judges (Exodus 18:13-26).

In all of that, God's People were united under him - differing levels and interactions - and none of it involved people looking the same or being the same at all points. Yeshua emphasized this as seen in

• Luke 4:18-26 of Naaman the Syrian (from II Kings 5) as the only one who was healed/blessed of God despite all the other Israeli lepers because of his trust in the Lord,
• The Widow in Sidon that Elijah went to despite all the other widows in Israel and that Yeshua also noted in Luke 4
• John 4 with the woman at the well/her town coming to faith in Him,
• Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-39 in emphasizing what it meant to reflect the Lord and how even Samaritans were able to do that
• The Roman Centurion in Matthew 8 who had greater faith than anyone in Israel
• The Samaritan leper in Luke 17 who ended up healed/placing faith in Yeshua
• The Demonized man in Gentile territory in Mark 5 who was told to go back to his people/testify of what Yeshua had done
• The Greeks who came to hear of the Messiah in John 12:20-25
• The Syrian-Phonecian Woman in Matthew 15 whose daughter was healed because of her faith in Him
• The Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 who was able to read of the Messiah because of Philip
• The Samaritan Towns in Acts 8 which were evangelized by Philip, the towns evangelized by Paul
• Cornelius in Acts 10-11 during the Gentile Pentecost and the Holy Spirit coming upon them

All of that was in addition to the Law itself (more discussed in in #11 (as well as #146, #147 #77 and #75 )... the Prophets and all of the Messianic Writings which speak of Yeshua and His focus. Historically, whenever Jewish believers/Jewish Christians (Messianic Jews) spoke of their relationship to Gentiles in the 1st Century, they'd not that they were all apart of God's Israel and yet they as Ethnic Israel were distinctly different than Gentiles were in their mission to reach out to the Physical State of Israel/other non-believing Jews.


That is radically different than what's commonly ascribed in modern times to Replacement Theology because of a lack of understanding that says either the Jewish people God no longer loves (false) or a view saying Gentiles are now the equivalent of Jew/Hebrews and must identify with the Hebrews in all their actions in order to truly support Israel/it's king


There are many in the Messianic Movement who've taken the stance that Israel is one part of the Community of G-d (Ekklesia), and the saved Gentiles are the other part of the Ekklesia - believing that we are all part of the same Body.... Jews and Gentiles being sharers together in the promise in Messiah, which shows that the Ekklesia (Church) has not “replaced” Israel or “taken over” the promises from Israel. For a good summation, This is from FFOZ's site, Found under "Where do Jewish believers stand with FFOZ?" here at Frequently Asked Theological Questions | FFOZ

"At First Fruits of Zion, we teach the unity of Jew and Gentile in Messiah. We assert that Gentile believers are grafted into Israel as Paul says in Romans 11, forming “one new man” (Ephesians 2:15) and that in Messiah, “there is neither Jew nor Greek.” (Galatians 3:28) However, none of that diminishes the unique and precious distinction of ethnic/halachic Jewish identity."
​

And from Biblical Foundations | First Fruits of Zion

"We believe that all non-Jewish people who trust in Yeshua are grafted into Israel. While this does not make them Jewish, they are full and equal participants in the covenants of promise. (Ephesians 2:12; Romans 11:11–24; Jeremiah 31:33)"

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Mpossoff (Mark?) - Thanks much for the encouragement and heads-up. I am familiar with Dr. F and his excellent Ariel ministries. My close friend and brother born in the Bronx, who did aliyah in the 70s, married a very wonderful sabra and who now lives in Haifa, came to know Yeshua (again, in the 70s) at one of Arnold's (first?) summer camps in upstate NY.

Cool to know and thanks for dropping by

 

[mercy1061]

One of my own unanswered-to-my-own-satisfaction questions, even prior this forum, is: How do believing Jews today fit into the Son of David's Millennial Kingdom?

How did the ancient jews fit into David's kingdom? Now if David accepted the ancient jews, should not his Son also accept them?

I understand and fully endorse that the Jews will indeed inherit all of the promises and blessings unilaterally promised to them by G-d to Abraham, which promises were then directly passed on to Isaac and then to Jacob/Israel and on to their descendants.

The ancient jews need no endorsement to be accepted by David or his Son.

My understanding is that the Lord Himself will refine all of Israel (this will not be a pleasant time) and draw or force all of Israel back to the Land, and will keep and protect all of Israel throughout all of the time of Jacob's troubles, i.e. the seven years of Tribulation. I believe that the present church, that mystery in times past and formed on Pentecost at the time of Yeshua's disciples filling with the Holy Spirit, will be taken away by Messiah to be with Him, as (or to be) His bride, prior to this seven year period - and that this current church includes in equal standing both believing Jews (Messianic and whatever…) and believing Gentiles (even if some of them are dumber than a rock). I.e., all of those who have believed/trusted in the finished work of Yeshua on the tree.

I am not sure if you are responding to me, but if you know where someone is coming from it may let you know where they are going. I think origin and conclusion are the same, a circle begins at the origin or starting point, then it returns to it's origin. You can a draw circle many different ways, you can draw small circles or large circles. The larger the circle, the greater distance traveled. In contrast the smaller the circle the least distance traveled. Although we can certainly reach our destination traveling in a small or large circle, the shortest distance between point a and b is a straight line. So please talk to me using a "straight line" what are you honestly asking me?

So then, my unanswered-to-myself question: are these current believing Jews (you all, in this forum) going to be completed (only for lack of a better term at the moment, please forgive me and withhold any spears that are raised) as the bride of Messiah? No small honor this, methinks. Or, are these Jews (you all), going to separate (be separated) from this body, this bride, to then re-mix (I'm sorry, in some sense you are already mixed in with the goy within the body of Messiah - truth does not have to make you happy) with the Jews who have been refined during the Tribulation and those Jews who went to sleep prior to the church age?

There is a difference between a "bride" participating in her wedding ceremony and a wife who is already married. The sons of Abraham were prohibited from marrying Canaanite women; those women that dwelled in the promise land. Many in ancient Israel married them anyway disregarding the prohibition; not only that but they did not honor Sabbath.

Neh 10
We will live by God’s Torah, given by Moshe the servant of God, and will perform and obey all the mitzvot, rulings and laws of Adonai our Lord.
31 (30) “We will not give our daughters as wives to the peoples of the land or take their daughters as wives for our sons.

32 (31) “If the peoples of the lands bring merchandise or food to sell on Shabbat, we will not buy from them on Shabbat or on a holy day.



Neh 13
23 In those days also I saw Jews who had married wives from Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab.
24 And their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak the Hebrew, but in the language of each people.
25 And I contended with them and reviled them and beat some of them and pulled out their hair and made them swear by God, saying, You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.
26Did not Solomon king of Israel act treacherously against God and miss the mark on account of such women? Among many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; yet strange women even caused him to sin [when he was old he turned treacherously away from the Lord to other gods, and God rent his kingdom from him].
27 Shall we then listen to you to do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying strange (heathen) women?
28 One of the sons of Joiada son of Eliashib the high priest was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite; therefore I chased him from me.
29 O my God, [earnestly] remember them, because they have defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priests and Levites.
30 Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign (heathen), and I defined the duties of the priests and Levites, everyone in his work;

Now, to me, this question is probably as equally theoretical as your question on "who will be allowed to partake of the Passover meal when the temple is restored?", so I am not trying to be contentious. Except that it is hard not to be just a little contentious, so I must ask those who are asking the "Passover" question: Since Messiah is already your Passover Lamb that has been sacrificed once and for all, do you really want to partake of the flesh of a year old member of a flock of sheep - if indeed sin offerings are again offered in the Millennial Temple? Would that not be just a little insulting to Messiah??? Just asking.

I did not ask this question, so this post may be to someone else.

But look, it seems to me so far that most of you, in your zeal, are already dividing and divided from the body of Messiah, splitting Jew away from Gentile in the body. And this, at this time in history - at a time when I (in my never to be humble opinion) strongly feel that the 'age of the gentiles' is coming to an end, and at a time when so many gentiles within the church are so ignorant that they know little or no Tanach at all (much to their shame) and they need (maybe more than 'want' - I yield on that) the guidance and teaching that can only come from believing Jews - at a critical time when unity is needed, we find ourselves divided. At this crucial time, do we amuse(?) ourselves over who might eat a Passover Sacrifice sometime in the future?

1 Kings 8

41 “Also the foreigner who does not belong to your people Isra’el — when he comes from a distant country because of your reputation 42 (for they will hear of your great reputation, your mighty hand and your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house; 43 then hear in heaven where you live, and act in accordance with everything about which the foreigner is calling to you; so that all the peoples of the earth will know your name and fear you, as does your people Isra’el, and so that they will know that this house which I have built bears your name.

I can understand the Jews wanting nothing to do with the gentile churches. All I can say on that subject is what I once said to a new Jewish friend at his cousin's wedding: "I can assure you that Martin Luther has since changed his opinion on the matter". Enough said, you know the history better than I do. And my late-night-long-day-and-I'm-tired rant is over.

And yes, my new friend, I did look at eSword (thank you for the suggestion), but I did not download it. I have quite a bit of Bible software on my computer already, and it didn't seem that this new one could do anything additional for me. But I do really appreciate your taking the time to give me the "short version(s)" for two reasons: first, they are very helpful and, second, I'm getting too old and long in tooth to begin Yeshiva and hack my way through all of the customs (figuratively speaking only). Yes, I am aware that some old sages did just that at amazing ages, but I am not up to their standards and can only run short distances at a time, and even that is at the speed of a turtle. So, again, thanks much Talmidim, and I am trying to digest and assimilate your suggestion on how to approach the questions. Good advice, I believe. But please be patient here, as my digestion isn't any faster that the rest of me, and time must pass and mistakes must be made... [P.S., someday, in the appropriate venue, explain to me what a "non-Trinitarian" Messianic is. Yes, I did look at the statement of faith on "your" website, but I am confused by your stated belief in the deity of each of the three. So, what I am wondering (someday) is "how does that work?"]

I think this post is for someone else.

 

[annier]

If I may say...

If I was going on a trip down to Florida (Sea World or Disneyworld ) and we ended up stranded (after driving from California ) in Kansas at a hotel - with us staying there for sometime and then exploring the world of Kansas - we could ask questions such as "Is this a bad place to be? Couldn't we live with this?" and there would be answers given to that general question as if it stands on its own.

You'd answer saying the things that could be made of the trip, the people you get to connect with, the scenery of Kansas being amazing...and having family time developed (even though the kids may be limited in fun due to how they were more blessed by Disney imagery or Sea World).

Nonetheless, to ask the question "Can't we live with this?" would be the WRONG question by itself since it forgets the original context.....as the real issue was what the original destination was and whether or not things got off course rather than thinking that where people were currently at was what was always intended.

The same thing goes for the dynamic of the Court of the Gentiles and asking if it'd be a bad place to be - as I think it leaves out the perspective of seeing whether or not GOD ever sanctioned it and wanted it to be in place in the first place....


I think it's interesting to consider that there was never a Court of Gentiles in the original tabernacle. For it was not just Gentiles - but even other everyday Hebrews included. The area known as the “Court of the Gentiles” was open to all, Jews and Gentiles, males or females, people of any class. Both Jews and Gentiles would congregate there - with the only exception being women during their menstrual period. Many activities went on in there, including the selling of sacrificial animals, teaching, bathing for purification, and even the ability to sleep.

• Court of the Gentiles in the Jewish Temple: clearing up misconceptions

For a brief excerpt:

​

Of course, on the same token, the original tabernacle set up in Exodus and later the Temple designed by David/made by Solomon did not seem to have type of Court for Gentiles. Yeshua had a lot of problems with others who'd take what was meant to help others pray - and turn it into a house for profit ( more shared here and here in #61 , #72 , #73 ).

After arriving in Jerusalem, Jesus spent time each day teaching in the Temple courts. The Temple was built as a series of concentric spaces each one more holy than the next, beginning with the Outer Court and culminating in the Holy of Holies, the innermost sanctum of the Temple:

1) The Outer Court (i.e. the “Court of Gentiles), accessible to almost everyone.
2) The Court of Israelites, reserved for all Jewish males who were ritually pure.
3) The Court of Prayer, also known as the Court of Women, not because it was only reserved for women, but because women could proceed no farther. Both men and women could enter this court, talk to priests, pray, observe the proceedings, bring their sacrifices. Women had a balcony built for them to separate them from the men.
4) The “Court of the Priests”, where only the priests could enter.
5) And the “Holy of Holies”, accessible only once a year by the High Priest.

​

The ministry of Jesus was always edgy and slightly counter-cultural and this is nowhere more apparent than when Jesus clears out the market in the Temple. Read about it in Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke19:45-48. ... a radical act by Jesus. By clearing the Temple, was Jesus condemning Judaism? No. He was condemning what Judaism had become, and the Jewish establishment that had allowed it to get to such a low point.

As said best elsewhere, "Jesus was angry that the holiness of the Temple was being violated by unscrupulousness money dealings, cheating and usury. Worshipers would come to the Temple with “pagan” money (i.e. money with images of pagan gods/emperors) to exchange it for the Temple currency which they could then present as a gift to G-d. And even though the Court of the Gentiles was very large, the Gentiles who came to worship G-d and to get a glimpse of the activities that went on in the Temple would find themselves crowded out by the various shops and tables of sellers peddling various items to visitors."

​

As another noted best:
Yeshua universalized a lot of things later to make clear His heart. Acts 7 comes to mind.


Stephen refutes the final charge, that he has spoken imroperly against the Temple (Acts 6:13-14), by showing that it was the people, not God, who wanted a dwelling place or house more substantial than the Tent of Witness or "Tabernacle" originally authorized in the Torah. The concept of the temple came into more view under the life of David---as seen in 2 Samuel 7:1-3 and 2 Samuel 7 ( 1 Chronicles 22:4-6 and 1 Chronicles 24-26 )- --- when it came to his desire for a physical temple for God. The Lord conceded....and of course, the centralized location of Temple had its benefits---especially as it concerned management. There were many benefits to having a mobile place of God's dwelling....a church that's based on the concept that church is not a building as much as the people/God's prescence within us.

In regards to Acts 7, Stephen seems to make the case that the Temple (as the Jews knew of it) was inferior to the Tabernacle..as seen in the case in Acts 7.

The Temple didn't have as much significance in the NT church with Hebraic Christians as it did with those in mainline Judaism. For we read that they met in homes, sure, but they also had a “third” place they seemed to frequent on a daily basis – the temple courts (Acts 2:46). While they may have been there to engage in actual temple worship on a daily basis ( Acts 3:1), it is more likely they turned the temple courtyard into the equivalent of a first-century "Starbucks" in order to gather as a community (e.g., Acts 5:12)...in honor of what God did in making them His new temple.

For others in the camp have noted, the first dwelling place God designed for Himself was a mobile home (a tabernacle) because He wanted to be on the move with His people. ....and as we see today, whenever we become focused solely on buildings rather than relationship, we end up not being able to do as Jesus did when he went to bring his message to places that others wouldn't go because they wouldn't go but to the Temple in Jerusalem. ...and the same mess also occurred with the Jews who had the OUTER symbolism of the Temple and yet they didn't have God's prescence..

John 4:19-26
​

19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

​

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
​

16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.


​

2 Corinthians 6:16
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

1 Corinthians 6:18-20
​

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

Ephesians 2:21
​

In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
​

​

I am just trying to get this.
The original temple of Solomon had only two courts Correct?
Was the wall in the middle, what made two courts?
So one court for the priests and one for the people?
Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The original temple of Solomon had only two courts Correct?

Was the wall in the middle, what made two courts?
So one court for the priests and one for the people?
Am I understanding this correctly?

To my knowledge, what was present in Solomon's Temple was more so for the priests and ministry more so than for all people. ...as as it was meant to reflect the Tabernacle ...

Some of this has been discussed before if you recall - as seen here:


G

My comments concerned the use of the term "zuwr", being used for ISRAELITES, in those passagesnot the uncircumcised. Circumcision had nothing to do with it. The Israelites were ESTRANGED from the tabernacle of God. Estranged from the priesthood. They were no more citizens in that house, than Gentiles were, despite being circumcised. That was what my post was about.

That has been taught in a number of Messianic Jewish synagouges for decades - as it concerns how strangers also applied to the Hebrews in certain respects when they themselves could not touch the things as the priests were allowed to - and I'm assuming that is also what was taught at the Messianic fellowship you used to attend before, correct? Just trying to be certain in light of the experiences you've had in Messianic Judaism.

That said..it needs to be remembered more on how the Tabernacle itself wasn't something where everyone was able to go in/chill.

The entire compound was surrounded by a high fence with only one entrance. For a person could not simply come from any direction into the tabernacle as he pleased. He had to enter through the one gate, which was always located to the east (so that people were facing west when they entered the tabernacle — a direct opposition to the pagan sun worshippers of the day who always faced east). Upon entering the gate, he encountered the brazen altar, where he was to present his animal offering, and then hand the reigns over to the priests, who make atonement and intercession for him in the tent.

The portable structure was erected by the Israelites at the command of God to accompany them in their journeys through the wilderness, as told in the book of Exodus (Exodus 25:1-31; Exodus 25:17; Exodus 35:1-4 and Exodus 38). The Tabernacle consisted of an outer courtyard, oblong in shape, 100 cubits by 50 cubits. This enclosure consisted of all-round hangings with an opening, the entrance, at the east side. These hangings were the means of separating the sacred spot from the profane realm outside it. However, it did not form a cover to the area within it, which was open to the sky.

A screen was placed at the entrance to the Holy Place to divide it off from rest of the courtyard and another screen at the entrance to the courtyard. There were thus three separate entrances. Each of these entrances led to a more sacred spot: the entrance to the courtyard, with a screen in front, the entrance to the Holy Place, with a screen in front, and the entrance to the Holy of Holies, with the curtain in front.Only the priests were allowed to enter the Holy Place and no one was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, except the High Priest on Yom Kippur.


The Ark was placed in the Holy of Holies behind the curtain. In the Holy Place there was a table in the North, the menorah in the south, and a golden altar, the altar of incense, placed in front of the curtain in front of the Ark at the entrance to the Holy of Holies. The table and altar were made the made of wood overlain with gold but the menorah was of solid gold. In the eastern square of the courtyard were placed the wooden altar covered with copper, upon which the sacrifices were burnt and their blood sprinkled, and a laver for the washing of the hands and feet of the priests.

The altar was the place for burning animal sacrifices and it showed the Israelites that the first step for sinful man to approach a holy God was to be cleansed by the blood of an innocent creature. For a sin offering, a person had to bring an animal — a male one without blemish or defect from the flock or herd — to the priest at the tabernacle gate.

“He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.” (Leviticus 1:4)
​

By laying his hand upon the head of the offering, the person was identifying with the sacrifice. His sin and guilt was being moved from himself to the animal. The priest would then slaughter the animal, sprinkle its blood in front of the veil of the Holy Place, burn the sacrifice, and pour the rest of it at the bottom of the altar.

“For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.” (Leviticus 17:11)

“The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22)
​

Then you had the Veil. The picture of the veil was that of a barrier between man and God, showing man that the holiness of God could not be trifled with. For God’s eyes are too pure to look on evil and He can tolerate no sin (Habakkuk 1:13). Whoever entered into the Holy of Holies was entering the very presence of God..and anyone except the high priest who entered the Holy of Holies would die. Even the high priest, God’s chosen mediator with His people, could only pass through the veil and enter this sacred dwelling once a year, on a prescribed day called the Day of Atonement.The veil was a barrier to make sure that man could not carelessly and irreverently enter into God’s awesome presence. Even as the high priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, he had to make some meticulous preparations: He had to wash himself, put on special clothing, bring burning incense to let the smoke cover his eyes from a direct view of God, and bring blood with him to make atonement for sins.

“But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.” (Hebrews 9:7)
​

Thus, the presence of God remained shielded from man behind a thick curtain during the history of Israel.

For more, one can go here for an in-depth examination - but all of that is said to make the point that worship was a big deal in Hebrew culture....and many areas were not accessible for everyone to enter into, be it Jew or Gentile.

​

To your question on the Courts....

If you recall the Outer Court (2 Chronicles 4:9; 2 Kings 23:12) .from Solomon's temple in its originality..

​

The famous verse "Enter his gates with thanksgiving, enter his courts with praise" (Psalm 100:4) refers to the inner court and the outer court.



According to biblical tradition, round about the building were:

• 1. The court of the priests (2 Chr. 4:9), called the "inner court" (1 Kings 6:36), which was separated from the space beyond by a wall of three courses of hewn stone, surmounted by cedar beams (1 Kings 4:36).

• 2. The great court, which surrounded the whole temple (2 Chr. 4:9). Here the people assembled to worship God (Jeremiah 19:14; 26:2).

The inner court of the priests contained the altar of burnt-offering (2 Chr. 15:8), the brazen sea (4:2-5, 10), and ten lavers (1 Kings 7:38, 39).

From 2 Kings 16:14 it is learned that a brazen altar stood before the Temple; 2 Chr. 4:1 gives its dimensions as 20 cubits square and 10 cubits high. And the brazen sea, 5 cubits wide and 10 deep, rested on the backs of twelve oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26). The Book of Kings gives its capacity as "two thousand baths" and the Chronicler inflates this to three thousand (2 Chr. 4:5-6) and states that its purpose was to afford opportunity for the ablutions of the priests.

The outer court was for the people of Israel while only the priests could enter the inner court. When the exiled Jews were freed by the Persians and returned to rebuild a second temple, they measured the outer court as being 500 cubits (750 feet) square. And both courts were surrounded by three rows of stones and entered through gates. Cedar beams were placed on top of the three rows of stone for protection and beautification.

The “great,” or more literally “big” plaza (ha-ʿăzārāh ha-gĕdôlah) was, by its name, obviously larger than the courtyard of the priests, and probably encompassed it. And access to the inner/upper court of the priests was restricted to the priests (and apparently the king) for their sacrificial operations - whereas Non-priests could come and participate in the outer or great plaza. In addition, the “great court had three courses of dressed stone to one layer of cedar beams all around; so had the inner court of the house of the LORD, and the vestibule of the house” (1 Kgs 7:12, NRSV).

​

Ryrie Study Bible​

And of course, all of that seems very distinct and seperate from the Temple of Herod which was made much later on with further additions - the Court of the Gentiles being one of them..​

 

[David Ben Yosef]

Now that is just downright RUDE posting like 10 times in a row, with huge images that stretch the page out.

 

[Steve Petersen]

If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bovine scatology.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am just trying to get this.
The original temple of Solomon had only two courts Correct?
Was the wall in the middle, what made two courts?
So one court for the priests and one for the people?
Am I understanding this correctly?

You are indeed understanding it correctly...

When you underestand the dynamic of the Court of the Priests alongside the Great Court (where all others congregated) and the Wall that seperated the two, then it's easier to understand the dynamics behind why the later innovations by King Herod threw things off a bit and what Yeshua spoke to when it came to the ways that Gentiles were forcibly seperated from the Jews sadly.

A lot of the reasons why Gentiles seemed to be discriminated against later on in history was due to the dynamic of history - Jews being persecuted as well as seeing the dangers with losing themselves in the world inherently began to think more seperation from Gentiles was better...and thus, there were mindsets that arose saying the Gentiles themselves were less than the Jewish people. What they failed to understand was that being Gentile isn't automatically equated to being negative (referenced here, here or here in the following):

• ← The Equality Puzzle, Part 1 | Morning Meditations
• The Equality Puzzle, Part 2 | Morning Meditations→
• ← The Equality Puzzle, Part 3 | Morning Meditations
• The Equality Puzzle, Part 4 | Morning Meditations
• Celebrating the Gentiles Among You - Kesher Journal of Messianic Judaism
• How Should we Approach the Term "Gentile"? | J.K McKee | Messianic Publications

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The Court of the Gentiles only existed in the first century Temple and was spawned out of a anti-gentile sentiment. We see this anti-gentile sentiment all through the Apostolic Writings, one very clear and specific note is in Acts 10, where gentiles were considered unclean, the purpose then, was to separate the 'dirty' gentiles from the 'clean' Jews, so the gentiles would not pollute the Temple or the Jews, but it is false to begin with..

Pretty much..

Seeing that aids in shaping the way Paul meant for Ephesians 2-3 to be taken when it came to Gentiles and Jews having the wall of seperation torn down. For there was never meant to be a wall in the first place and the Jews born in the time of Christ grew up assuming Gentiles had to be dirty/automatically seperate from them at all levels....but the Lord still worked with Gentiles often. And when Christ died, it wasn't so much a matter of making it possible for Gentiles to be accepted before the Lord as if they hadn't been before....an ontological perspective.

Rather, it seems more sensible to say that Paul noted that His death had a symbolic impact where what He did for all mankind by His death/blood shed was meant to take away the ideology of Gentiles having to be afar....opening the door for the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost) to fall on all and others bringing Gentiles together with the Jewish people who'd respond to the work of Christ and show Gentiles the true extent of how concerned Christ was for them being together with the Jews - thus ending the Wall of Seperation that existed. Of course, His blood shed and sacrifice/resurrection opened up the door for ontological changes in how men relate to God - but in the practical, the Wall of Seperation doesn't seem to be something Paul was ever meaning to convey as if it was meant to be developed or a representation of how God established things in the Temple era.