Submitting Torah Observance To New Covenant Principles

[visionary]

Any changes has been towards a stronger conviction than before that it is more imperative that I learn the Ways of God through Holy Spirit ... God's Mount Sinai sermon along with Yeshua's Mount of Olives message.. may my life reflect more of Him than before.

 

[Lulav]

Lulav,

I don't think that it is easy to make headway with someone who clearly (me included) believe that Paul's writings are inspired. I'll start there and continue to say that I don't think that they (Paul's writings) are in contrast to Yahushua's teaching.

For instance, I don't believe that those who rely on observance of Torah have Salvation. Those who rely on Grace do. It does not mean that we should not observe Torah. I'm very happy with Galations and I do not think that Paul was/is anti-Torah.

We are told that if we love Him we will keep His commandments. The scripture in Galations tells us that we cannot gain salvation from keeping commandments.

Torah was NEVER meant/designed/created to save. And if you rely on it to save you, you are under it's curse, condemnation to death because of the lack of grace that enables you to obey/observe.

Since I've seen you around today, asking about Shavuot, I will reply to this. I am glad you are 'happy' with Galatians, it shows me very much were you stand. And it is not with Jews.

You say that Torah was NEVER meant to save. This is from one teacher only and goes against what Moses wrote down that HaShem gave him. I won't even bother posting all those verses that back this up.

There is not one other writer that backs up that teaching by Paul, in fact it is opposite what Yeshua was recorded to have said/taught.

Let's see what he has to say.

How does one received Salvation? If you believe that 'Salvation= Eternal Life'

Version from Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way , there came one running , and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery , Do not kill , Do not steal , Do not bear false witness , Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother...............................
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest : go thy way , sell whatsoever thou hast , and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven

Yeshua taught to receive eternal life was to follow Torah. To walk in the way that his Father said to walk. And the only thing to add to that, in this case it was because he was rich, was to seel his riches and give to the poor, which is mercy. As you can see he only mentions the 5 commandments in this case that are related to loving your neighbor. The first 5 which have to do with Loving G-d he does not mention, except saying, 'You know the commandments'.

He includes the last 5 to make emphasis on what he says next to the man, which shows love and compassion for the neighbor.

But go ye and learn what that meaneth , I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous ( those with mercy, loving their neighbors), but sinners (the unmerciful) to repentance.

Quoting from Hoshea

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

It is better to have mercy than to sin against G-d and neighbor and have to offer sacrifice. And to know G-ds heart and how he wants us to walk than to just bring him a burnt offering. Obedience instead of gifting. This shows more love.

Yeshua was trying to show that you needed true love. Obedience will get you in (to heaven, eternal life, haba olam) , but love will make you perfect (that is your 'bonus', your 'treasure' in heaven) .

 

[yedida]

Amen!! Lulav

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

[Lulav]

Amen!! Lulav

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Yes, that is the 'knowledge of G-d' I believe he is speaking of.

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

And 'iniquity' here is 'anomia' which means lawlessness. Without Torah.

So in essence Yeshua says:

"I never knew you, Get away from me, you who are without Torah."

 

[Lulav]

Any changes has been towards a stronger conviction than before that it is more imperative that I learn the Ways of God through Holy Spirit ... God's Mount Sinai sermon along with Yeshua's Mount of Olives message.. may my life reflect more of Him than before.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Romans 11 does not say that Gentiles are to keep the 613 mitzvot of the Torah (and the Torah is one). It says that Gentiles are grafted into the promises and blessings of faithful Israel. In clearer words, Rom 11 does not overthrow the clear, sane and Hebraic teaching of Galatians, Colossians or the previous chapters of Romans.

Have you never seen an ingrafted tree? The branches do not morph into the same species. They remain distinct yet they grow together. Our friend SGM4HIM once posted a beautiful picture of one for us....go and seek it in the archive.
...............

...........Peter said of the Law and forcing Gentiles to keep it: "Now therefore why do you tempt God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples, a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15:10)

So, the real problem here is that you see the Torah as way easy, and Peter the Apostle who actually knew Jesus was misguided.

The reason you come to such conclusions is because you have never been under the Law personally. Peter was.

Can I suggest you check out- Ed Dobson

That guy tried it out.

............
Yes, keeping the Torah can be a joyous thing (except for the killing animals and stoning people to death bits and other portions that we don't need to point out to make our illustration clearer) but is not knowing Jesus and having the fullness of the Holy Spirit in your life far more joyous? Is not this the "peace which passeth all understanding"? You don't get more of Jesus by keeping the Torah. The power of the Holy Spirit will strengthen you to keep the Law of Christ, and you don't get the Holy Spirit by the works of the Law. What gets you to Heaven- observing days, seasons and wearing tzitzis or being crucified with Christ, putting to death the old man of sin and living a life of love of God and neighbour?

I appreciate your love for the Torah- I share it. But I know that it is easy for some Christians to fall into a Torah-focused idolatry, or even an idolatry of all things Jewish. But when we meet Jesus that's all we want- more of Him, less of us.
.

I agree with you in what you note when it comes to the issue of how there's such a thing as Torah Idolatry..and sadly, many (here included) have fallen directly into that when it comes to assuming that its by OBEYING Torah alone (rather than by the power of the Lord) that one comes into union with the Lord. It often seems that people try to place both Paul and the other apostles into opposition with each other continually, despite the fact that Paul Himself was approved by the apostles in Acts 15. For as many even here on the boards try to make it out as if Peter was not supporative of Paul, the man referenced Paul in one of his laters later---as seen in 2 Peter 3:14-16

Paul made exceptionally clear that he only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love ( Galatians 5:5-7, Romans 13:7-9, Romans 13, Galatians 6:1-3, etc )---and even the other apostles echoed this same concept in their epistles, such as John when he summed up God's commands/Torah into simply LOVING your neighbor ( 1 John 4:20-21 , 1 John 3:22-24, )

2 John 1:6
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
2 John 1:5-7/ 2 John 1

​

James, the brother of Jesus, noted the same exact concept when it came to demonstrating one's heart for the Lord by their deeds---and his stance was that the ULTIMATE expression of devotion to the Lord was whether or not one truly loved their neighbor ( James 2:8 ), prior to any kind of discussion on faith/works...and even his stance of works/faith went directly in line with what Paul noted.

For some good articles on the issue, one can go here:

• The Great Debates: (Acts 15:1-41)

• The Giving and Taking of Advice (Acts 21:1-40)

• 
  A Messianic Jewish Levite on the New ... - The Rosh Pina Project
  
  

 

[Lulav]

'Walk in love', this is what Yeshua taught, however though it may seem that Paul taught the same thing, it is easy to see that he taught this 'love' without the walk.

'Walk' in Hebrew idiom means to follow the right path, to walk in the way the L-RD says to. e.g., to keep the commandments.

All Yeshua 'added' was to keep them not out of obligation, but out of love and the love in turn would bring about the mercy that HaShem wanted from us in the first place.

Peter supportive of Paul?

It is true that more modern scholars deny the genuineness of II Peter than that of any single book in the canon. This is done by men like F. H. Chase, J. B. Mayor, and R. D. Strachan, who are followers of Christ as Lord and Saviour.

It is more likely a pseudepigraphic book that has had that verse interpolated. Some also believe that it was in fact written by Paul by the style of the letter.

When you compare the letters of Paul with the book of acts you will see there are even disputations there. The book of acts seems to want to present a unity between the Jerusalem church and Paul's teachings but by Paul's own letters we can see that isn't so.

As far as James when you read this epistle, after reading Paul's you can see where this is more of a refutation of what Paul was teaching rather than an agreement or worst yet, an endorsement.

 

[Lulav]

Personally, I have to disagree there, sir. The passage is talking about adult circumcison. God never required it. Otherwise, what's the point of the 8th day? Why did Paul circumcise Timothy and not Titus? Because Timothy should have been because he was born a Hebrew but was not. Titus was a Gentile who'd come to the faith. Titus' kids would've had to have been but no adult who was not born a Hebrew was ever required to be circumcised. If one chooses to, that's a free will offering.

And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

 

[yedida]

'Walk in love', this is what Yeshua taught, however though it may seem that Paul taught the same thing, it is easy to see that he taught this 'love' without the walk.

'Walk' in Hebrew idiom means to follow the right path, to walk in the way the L-RD says to. e.g., to keep the commandments.

All Yeshua 'added' was to keep them not out of obligation, but out of love and the love in turn would bring about the mercy that HaShem wanted from us in the first place.

Peter supportive of Paul?

It is more likely a pseudepigraphic book that has had that verse interpolated. Some also believe that it was in fact written by Paul by the style of the letter.

When you compare the letters of Paul with the book of acts you will see there are even disputations there. The book of acts seems to want to present a unity between the Jerusalem church and Paul's teachings but by Paul's own letters we can see that isn't so.

As far as James when you read this epistle, after reading Paul's you can see where this is more of a refutation of what Paul was teaching rather than an agreement or worst yet, an endorsement.

2 Peter is thought to be a forgery by many.
And there are many differences between what Acts says and what Paul says about things. Paul was received as a beloved brother in the faith but not as an apostle in Acts 15.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

'Walk in love', this is what Yeshua taught, however though it may seem that Paul taught the same thing, it is easy to see that he taught this 'love' without the walk.

'Walk' in Hebrew idiom means to follow the right path, to walk in the way the L-RD says to. e.g., to keep the commandments.
.

One must wonder where "walk" as Paul discussed it differs from what the apostles taught--including James and John, as well as Peter and Paul? The same issue Paul notes was mentioned in I Peter as well ...and on the subject, commandments change over time. There is a clear precendent in scripture for that---and thus, saying that one's to follow the commandments isn't complete if avoiding where the scriptures note that the commandments are to be different in differing eras.

All Yeshua 'added' was to keep them not out of obligation, but out of love and the love in turn would bring about the mercy that HaShem wanted from us in the first place.

It'd seem valid when other scholars note that what Jesus brought them to was a new destination that the Mosaic code was never meant to take them to. For it was given temporarily to illustrate a point--and his focusing on love was to show the entire purpose of the Torah...with his emphasis being a new starting point for what the Lord desired..

Peter supportive of Paul?

It is more likely a pseudepigraphic book that has had that verse interpolated. Some also believe that it was in fact written by Paul by the style of the letter.

There are many difficulties that I Peter, alongside II Peter, have that are not easily renconciled....though some scholars also believe, counter to those disbeleving, that there's not much evidence for saying that work is pseudepigraphic anymore than James and other books people love. There's an actually an article on the issue that seemed to be very solid in review in Peter Kruger of The Authenticity of 2 Peter---and another by Wayne Stiles that can be found under the name of Is 2 Peter Peter’s? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site . Others are of the mindset that the external evidence, while not proving authenticity, neither disproves it....

Another to consider is Michael Heisner, as he is perhaps one of the most controversial theologians I've ever come across. But he's very sound even as he may be "unorthodox" on many points---and he gave a good view on the issue here, at his site entitled "The Naked Bible << Peter Williams (NT Textual Critic) Debates Bart Ehrman - Michael S ...F and "The Naked Bible <<Another Bart-Sequitur."

When you compare the letters of Paul with the book of acts you will see there are even disputations there.

It is interesting to see what often occurs when one compares Paul with Acts--for there're many who've sought to do so/felt that Paul was at odds with the book, whereas others have done the same...and though feeling that way, went back again/realized that much of what he noted was indeed spot on. Many scholars have often noted that much of it that is considered to be disputations are often mischaracterized or singled out from the rest of the text uncessarily.

The book of acts seems to want to present a unity between the Jerusalem church and Paul's teachings but by Paul's own letters we can see that isn't so.

There are others who've often noted that Paul's letters are often very much in line with the Book of Acts--though even with that, there are people noting how one would have to stretch very hard to show Paul was somehow inconsistent with the Book of Acts anymore than other apostles who echoed the same.

As far as James when you read this epistle, after reading Paul's you can see where this is more of a refutation of what Paul was teaching rather than an agreement or worst yet, an endorsement

It often seems that many pit James against Paul as if they weren't on the same page---though what often occurred was that they simply were on differing sides of the same coin...and with differing focuses. There are many things James has said that go directly in line with what Paul/Jesus noted---and many Jewish scholars who've noted the same. Many times, it can be the case that one can read error into the letters of Paul where there is none...and that can be damaging if one looks for a problem that's non-existent.

There are at least two aspects to &#8220;righteousness&#8221;: these are justification and sanctification (holiness). Abraham, Moses and Paul could only be justified by faith, that is, made right (righteous) in God&#8217;s eyes through faith. The next step: justification is then exemplified (&#8220;incarnated&#8221 by our works. If our works procede from faith (analogously if our sacrifices procede from repentance) then the righteousness of our faith &#8220;rubs off&#8221; on to our works. If we have no authentic faith, the works are like menstrual rags. THAT is what the Book of James is about.

Paul&#8217;s argument (Galatians, Romans and elsewhere) is that faith alone justifies, that is, makes us right with God. &#8220;Faith,&#8221; (in the NT) is not merely a mental assent but a deep commitment, which itself is the expresssion of a new life that Christ has planted in us (&#8220;born again&#8221. Now, righteousness is not only linked to faith, but also to works. This brings us to the meaning of salvation. Salvation starts with faith, which produces good works (the law of love &#8211; love of God and &#8220;neighbour&#8221, which produces holiness (sanctification), which results in eternal life. This is summed up in that wonderful verse (for followers of Jesus) in Romans 8:29-30) &#8211; the golden chain of salvation/redemption.

&#8220;For those God foreknew (foreloved) he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.&#8221;
​

Between justification (the gift of faith) and glorification (eternal life) there is holiness (sanctification).

Righteousness runs through the whole chain of salvation. If you have received (the righteousness of) genuine faith, you will become holy (do good works); THAT is implied in Romans 8:29-30, and made explicit throughout many parts of the NT (for example, John&#8217;s letters).

The Ministry of TNN with John Mckee has had some excellent reviews on the issue---and As one Messianic mentioned from them when it came to Paul's views on Galatians being misunderstood:

When I view Galatians, I am guided by an emerging and progressing Messianic theology, a message that places Messiah Yeshua at the center, and desires all of God&#8217;s people to live in obedience to His commandments. I know that there is a need to tackle the difficult questions that Galatians poses in relation to the continued validity of the Torah, while at the same time we need not hesitate to be self-critical of a Messianic movement that is experiencing growing pains.

We need to know the mission we must perform in encountering either antinomianism or neonomianism: Has today&#8217;s Christian Church truly benefited from its widescale abandonment of the Torah and its principles? This is where the battle for the relevancy of the Messianic movement will lie in the future.
Paul&#8217;s letter to the Galatians is often completely removed from its ancient setting by the Christian layperson, and frequently Messianic teachers do no better.

It is actually not that difficult to understand Paul&#8217;s message, provided we look at his letter as a whole, and place ourselves back into the actual situation he addressed. When we do this, we actually find that Paul&#8217;s letter to the Galatians has unbelievable relevance for the Messianic community and what we are presently facing. Rather than simply &#8220;responding&#8221; to supposed Pauline claims against the Torah, we can actually find unbelievably valuable instruction on how to confront issues of inclusion and equality in a Messianic movement that has a distinct sector becoming a proverbial &#8220;Jews&#8217; only club,&#8221; where non-Jewish Believers are neither welcomed or treated as equal members of the Messiah&#8217;s Body.


Do we suffer from those truly trying to &#8220;Judaize,&#8221; i.e., force proselyte conversion onto non-Jewish Believers (cf. Galatians 2:11-14)? Is inclusion in the family of God truly contingent on one&#8217;s ethnicity, or one&#8217;s faith in God? Does the gospel message of liberation truly allow all people of all ethnicities&#8212;and even men and women (Galatians 3:27-28)&#8212;to be equal members of the ekkl&#275;sia?

Is today&#8217;s Messianic movement stifled in its growth because it has been unwelcoming of non-Jewish Believers, and perhaps even the distinct, unique cultural elements that they bring independent of Judaism? These are questions that will continue to present themselves as the older generation of Messianic leaders and teachers is retired, and a newer generation of Messianic leaders and teachers must look ahead toward the future. What is the mission that we are to achieve? I pray that Galatians can help us determine what that mission is.




As we are currently in the process of going through Galatians in our Wednesday Night Bible Study, I know that some of you have to re-listen to the lectures (and will have to re-read or re-examine parts of the forthcoming commentary), due to the complexity of information it contains. Yet, Galatians is not a difficult text to understand, provided you know what the three &#8220;silver bullets&#8221; are for viewing it in a pro-Torah, Messianic light:

• &#8220;Righteousness&#8221; in Galatians can include a corporate status as a member of God&#8217;s people, every bit as it regards personal justification and remission of sin. As a direct result of expressing faith in Yeshua the Messiah, individual Believers are made a part of God&#8217;s corporate people. One&#8217;s righteousness is to come via faith and trust in the gospel.

• &#8220;Circumcision&#8221; in Galatians is not so much an emphasis on a physical operation, but instead is more of an emphasis on the ritual of becoming a proselyte to Judaism. In undergoing &#8220;circumcision,&#8221; the non-Jewish Galatians would have discounted the power of the gospel and faith in Yeshua as being the entryway to God&#8217;s covenant people, but instead an act of the flesh. (And if &#8220;circumcision&#8221; is used as a shorthand for &#8220;ritual proselyte conversion&#8221;&#8212;it can include women equally as much as men.)

• &#8220;Works of the Law&#8221; do not concern obedience to God&#8217;s Torah, as much as they concern a specific way of following the Torah as determined by a sectarian Jewish community. By Paul asserting that righteousness does not come via &#8220;works of law,&#8221; while right to conclude that one&#8217;s personal forgiveness does not come by human action, he is more specifically stating that inclusion among God&#8217;s people does not come by following the Torah according to a specific group&#8217;s set of values. (Consult the FAQ entry on the TNN website &#8220;Works of the Law&#8221; for a more detailed description.)

​

If you can understand these three things, then your own study of Galatians should go very well. Not only will you be able to have a fuller grasp on the ancient context of Galatians, but also its great importance for the growth and maturation of the Messianic community in the years ahead!
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Some use Galatians to attack Messianic observance of Torah, but there's just nothing in it that aids this attack. I'm observant and love Galatians.

.

If I may ask, what specific fellowship do you attend?

 

[Lulav]

The passage concerning Moses doing his two sons, God was ready to kill Moses because he hadn't. His wife was quite replused by it and said unto Moses, 'A bloody husband art thou unto me!' Even today, most folks consider it a 'mutilation'! I mean, for an older kid, I can understand but for an 8 year old baby? What memory does a babe of that age have of it?

I just wanted to comment on this part.
Regarding what Zipporah said to Moshe, it is not clear in the context of wither G-d was seeking to kill Moses or his son because he wasn't circumcised. Irregardless, there is more than meets the eye, especially in english what was being conveyed here.

This is great article to read on it, showing the Hebrew idioms as well as the ancient writings from the sages on this regard. It seems that there may have been a pact made between Jethro and Moses regarding marrying Zipporah and how to raise their children. Her accusal was not because of repulsion, but rather because of the death threat, either to Moses or her son. Those of Jethros tribe performed circumcision, usually at age 13 or right before marriage, so it was no strange ritual to her at all.

It was not considered a mutilation.

One must remember genealogy here, Midian was a son of Abraham, who was given circumcision and performed it on Ishmael (His Egyptian wifes son) at age 13. Midian was the son of his second Egyptian wife and Abraham would have thus performed circumcision on him as well. These are the people from which Jethro was descended from.

 

[visionary]

I understand you respect the man, but his analogy is flawed and his assertion that the Galatians once observed Torah before they turned to Messiah is mistaken.

One's teacher teaches one how to live (in this example), should you then ignore what you are taught? The analogy falls down very quickly. In the context of the rest of scripture, even further.

Stating that 4:9 is about Torah is nothing less than absurd. In the same way that saying that 4:10 points to the observance of the Hebrew feasts. It's just not true, a complete fabrication. If you look at 4:3 you'll see what he (author of Galatians) was talking about, this is the simplest rule of interpretation, context.

Some use Galatians to attack Messianic observance of Torah, but there's just nothing in it that aids this attack. I'm observant and love Galatians.

Be careful.

amen

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Submitting Torah Observance To New Covenant Principles

Subscribing

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Submitting Torah Observance To New Covenant Principles

Subscribing

The author of the thread is doing really good, by the way..

 

[visionary]

New Perspectives on Paul originated outside the Messianic movement.

They have not 'spun' Paul into a Torah observant Jew; they have UNSPUN the Christian view that he abandoned the Torah. Paul is clear that he had never spoken against the Law and the Temple.

When accused of doing just that, he submitted to instructions from James to prove he had NOT.

Amen

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The author of the thread is doing really good, by the way..

I agree

http://www.christianforums.com/t7485449/#post55316583

<snip OP>

We should question Torah Observant Messianic Jewish doctrine seriously by first concentrating on the teachings in the epistles to the Hebrews, Romans and Galatians.

Above all the other apostles, Paul was given the divine task of proclaiming the principles of the New Covenant to Jew and Gentile believer alike. Let us endeavor to take His new revelation to heart. The "Messianic Literary Corner" has published a study series entitled "Submitting Torah Observance To New Covenant Principles" to discuss this very important doctrinal topic.

 

[visionary]

Above all the other apostles, Paul was given the divine task of proclaiming the principles of the New Covenant to Jew and Gentile believer alike. Let us endeavor to take His new revelation to heart.

Peter was given the commission to take the message to the gentiles. Was he pushed aside by God for Paul to take over?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Peter was given the commission to take the message to the gentiles. Was he pushed aside by God for Paul to take over?

If I may say,

The history of the church, according to the book of Acts, seem to indicate that Peter wasn't really doing the best in leadership when it came to ensuring unity in the body---and all parts of the Church living out their function. Paul had a specific purpose that did much for both Jews/Gentiles..and some of this was discussed more in-depth in #91

I've always been of the thought that Paul was not necessarily God's FIRST Choice---but rather the choice the Lord decided to utilize after the apostles didn't seem to get the job done that He had entrusted to them. There were already lots cast to fulfill the position of Judas when it came to the choosing of Mattias in Acts 1:12-25. However, although the procedure that Peter followed indicates that Matthias was a reasonable choice from their point of view...and lots were used to decide issues many times (Leviticus 16:7-9, Numbers 26:54-56 , Numbers 33:53-55, Numbers 34:12-14 , Joshua 18:5-7 / Numbers 36:1-3 , Joshua 14:1-3 , 1 Samuel 10:19-21 , 1 Samuel 14:40-42 , 1 Chronicles 24:30-31, Nehemiah 10:33-35, Nehemiah 11:1-3 , Esther 3:6-8 , Proverbs 16:32-33, Proverbs 18:17-19 , Jonah 1:6-8, Luke 1:8-10 , )...... it&#8217;s not clear from Acts 1:12-26 that the Lord actually prompted the disciples to fill the vacancy in their ranks. On the contrary, it seems obvious that Paul was His choice. Matthias was never mentioned again by any of the Disciples....and none of them gave any objection to Paul&#8217;s description of himself as an Apostle chosen by God, (all his letters except for Philippians, Thessalonians and Philemon begin with him introducing himself this way)


Some of this is interesting to consider from a larger perspective when it comes to the exception of the apostle Paul among the apostles. For his position as the thirteenth reigning apostle can be reconciled by more closely examining Jesus' description in Matthew, "upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel". A light survey of the the Old Testament will reveal that Israel's tribes eventually numbered thirteen, although they began with twelve sons! Generally, each of the tribes of Israel was called by one of the twelve sons of Israel (Jacob), who fathered the respective tribe. However, the tribe belonging to Israel's son, Joseph, was split into two more tribes, named after Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Mansseh (Genesis 48:1-6). They were numbered with Israel's sons as his sons. Apparently, Joseph was blessed with a "double portion" of sorts (Genesis 48:21-22). In spite of their being thirteen tribes, the tribes of Israel continued to be called the "twelve" after the twelve original sons of Israel (Genesis 49:22-28; Exodus 24:4).

Likewise, the office left vacant by Judas was split into two offices, which were filled by Matthias and Paul. This spiritual figure is enforced by Jesus, Who linked their reign upon twelve thrones to the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:27-28). Therefore, there were and are twelve apostles - figuratively: Twelve appointed originally, but the twelfth office was split into two, just as the twelve original tribes of Israel were eventually numbered as thirteen. If that figure seems strange, please consider that the entire statement is figurative. The apostles' reign was ultimately over spiritual Israel, not physical Israel, since the apostles were sent to all nations in all the earth (Matthew 28:18-20; Romans 9:3, )....and the sure and ancient end of appointing modern apostles is confirmed by the last apostle, Paul, writing of the different witnesses and apostles who saw Jesus after His resurrection:

"After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." (I Corinthians 15:7-8)
​

Just as the youngest child in a family may be born "unexpectedly" and several years after their older siblings, so the apostle Paul was like "one born out of due time". Figuratively speaking, there were only twelve apostles (thirteen literally), who were appointed by Jesus and remain so even today.

As it concerns the effectiveness of Paul's ministry in comparision with Peter's, the history of the Book of Acts is generally where it seems to get interesting. Its funny, when reading Acts 6:1-8, that the Jerusalem church had a great feeding program going at one point, while the Corinthians and the Thessalonians really looked out for their Jerusalem counterparts when famine hit that region. And this is significant since it seems that the church in Antioch is the first multiethnic church with intentional missions and church planting as its model. We do not know exactly who started this &#8230;although we do have a list of its leaders in Acts 13:1-3 (Acts 11:21-26, Acts 15:30). Some of the names are Greek and others are Jewish&#8211;those showing that it was not simply an &#8220;ethnic&#8221; church with programs only for one group at the exclusion of others. There was multi cultural mixture happening&#8230;

The Church in Antioch was radically different from others seeing how they sent their very best (Paul and Barnabas) out into uncharted territory rather than keep things within the camp&#8212;and whereas the Jerusalem Church looked out for its own, it didn&#8217;t do so for others abroad&#8230;.and had to LITERALLY be forced through persecution to spread out. To see how the Gentile Churches had to literally keep sending support to the Jerusalem Church (Romans 15:25-28, I Corinthians 16:1-23) is amazing, especially seeing how the Mother Church of Jerusalem was responsible for so much&#8212;-and yet, the Jews there mainly kept to their own&#8230;even avoiding those who were Samaritans (Half Breed Jews) until forced out in Acts 8:. That&#8217;s odd to see the church do that since Jesus Himself had a heart for Samaria ( John 4:4-6, Luke 9:50-56, Luke 17:10-19, )&#8212;-and he told them SPECIFICALLY that the power of the Spirit was to go to Samaria and all the ends of the earth (Acts 1:7-9 , Matthew 28).

Though the early church prospered where they were, it seems things got inward and no action was going OUTWARD&#8212;and thus, the persecution sent them/the apostles toward Samaria anyhow ( Acts 8:1-3, Acts 8:4-6 , Acts 9:30-32 ).


When Noah stepped off the ark God gave him the original command to &#8220;Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth&#8221; (Gen. 9:1, 7). Like people so often do, they tried to settle in one place and started a building project in direct disobedience to God&#8217;s design and God had to force decentralization with the confusion of languages (Gen. 11:7-8). The issue was not whether or not the building was evil. The reason God had to intervene was to force obedience to His command to decentralize and fill the earth.

The church has been given a command to spread out and fill the earth as well (Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8). But like all people, the apostles struggled with the temptation to settle in one place and build&#8212;-and some of this may&#8217;ve been due to their desire to not go through so much transition since they already had to deal with being a new movement and seeing their Lord ascend into Heaven.

When looking at how the churches developed in Antioch, Ephesus, or Thessalonica, it seems that they inherently had a healthier outlook and a better model of church than did the church in Jerusalem when it became isolated with its own affairs. Jesus commanded the first disciples in Acts 1:8 to spread out from Jerusalem until the ends of the earth are filled with the power of God. However, they all stayed in Jerusalem. Just as God forced decentralization in Genesis 11 with languages, he forced decentralization in Acts by allowing persecution (Acts 8:1).

Though they were blessed with comfort as seen in Acts 2:41-46 as they dilligently maintained a credible witness amongst their own people&#8212;-as was the case with much of the Black Church when dealing with outisde oppressive/internal struggles&#8212;-the comfort came at the price of them being disconnected with the global arena.

Ironically, after the perseuction by Saul, what&#8217;s interesting is that literally everyone went from the Jerusalem church went out except the &#8220;sent ones&#8221; (Apostles) who were given the command in the first place. They only went after others before them made contact ( Acts 8:24-26 Acts )&#8212;and even then, it still seems apparent that Peter Struggled with Racism/exclusion of others (Acts 11:1-19, Acts 10:9-48, Galatians 2:8-18, etc)

This brings us back to the church in Antioch, where God had to use others to do the job that the sent ones were called to do
(Acts 13:1-3). Peter and those others in Acts 15:1-22 gave their gave their blessing to the new apostles in their multicultural vision for the Kingdom&#8230;.and it seems that the only way for their to be peace was for Paul to be for the Gentiles whereas Peter and the others would be solely for the Jews ( Galatians 2:8-10 )

Perhaps they felt that those with more experience in Multicultural Backgrounds would be better suited for working with those in multicultural issues while they being more comfortable/suited for their own people would stay home&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;


By Acts 21:17-37, Paul returns to the Jerusalem church and finally the &#8220;sent ones&#8221; are gone. Only James, who supported Multicultural perspectives (Acts 15:12-14 ), Paul is taken aside and told in private that he shouldn&#8217;t be there&#8230; that the church was overrun with legalists who would attack Paul if they see him (Acts 21:20-26). And sure enough, he is attacked, arrested and many in the Jerusalem Church tried to have him killed&#8230;

By A.D 70, the Jerusalem Church was nearly gone&#8212;and the second tier generation of leaders had risen up, taking the church in differing directions. For those directions it went into, it avoided the dangers of being centralized in one location amongst one group &#8212;as Jerusalem was destroyed&#8230;.while those with a multi-cultural perspective were able to go on.


Without Paul, the church would have not been able to survive to the significant degree which it did...and for those noting that what was deemed as the "Church" (including the Church Father's) was just Gentiles, it may be significant to remember that many involved were from a Jewish worldview.

For some examples, Hegesippus, a second century writer, is an extant orthodox, Jewish Christian that comes to mind outside of the New Testament. And after a bit of poking around I found Aristo of Pella, who recorded a debate between another Jewish Christian, Jason, and a Jew, Papiscus. Apparently Papiscus was so influenced by Jason that he eventually converted to Christianity as well.

For another, as I read elsewhere:

"Origen had known and been profoundly influenced by a Palestinian Jewish convert to Christianity in Alexandria, a son of a rabbi, who was capable of answering questions about the Hebrew Bible."
(Thomas P. Scheck, Homilies on Numbers footnote 66, in Ancient Christian Texts 3:76)
​

Given this and other evidence which has been provided, it is clear that there were still Jewish converts to both orthodox and heterodox Christianity well into the second century, and even the third. That there were many more Gentiles among the Christians is no surprise considering that the Hebrews were a minority demographic.

As it concerns why many Jews joined into Christianity and others wondering "Why does it seem so few Jews are able to be identified in Gentile churches", the problem is that after 70 AD and the destruction of the 2nd Temple and Jerusalem, the Jews did not really respond to the message too much any more and the fact that they had some other problems and things going on did not help. If the Temple and Jerusalem had stayed the center of Judaism the Jewish Christians would have stayed there too and there would be a lot more Jewish Christians known to us today. But that is not the way history worked out and the message was taken to the Gentiles and spread around them and stayed there.

I think the other problem is after 70 AD even the Jewish Christians most likely just wanted to be known as Christians so as to avoid a lot of drama and problems because of the Jewish identification. Considering the atmosphere of Rome when it came to not liking the Jewish people, it would have been a good thing to remain undercover...especially after what Titus did to Jerusalem and how many were to be deported ON SIGHT to the far ends of the earth. Some of this was discussed more in-depth here in #94 /#96

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I agree

http://www.christianforums.com/t7485449/#post55316583