On a broad stroke, allow me to put down in writing why you may have lost a general perspective of the New Covenant Versus the Old Covenant and the Torah.
1. Believers in Jesus are not under the Law of Moses (Torah)
In 1 Corinthians 8:20-21, Paul wrote,
"20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law."
Paul here tells us here definitively that he himself is not under the Law (the Torah), when he was talking about preaching to the Jews (v 20).
So believers in Jesus are no longer under the Law of Moses (the Torah).
So the issue of how much or how little we need to do to observe the Torah as if it applied to believers of Jesus is therefore a non-issue.
2. Believers in Jesus are now under Christ's Law.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:21 that he is not lawless, but is now under the Law of Christ.
The Law of Christ would comprise all that Jesus taught as well as the revelation He gave by His Spirit to the other New Testament writers.
3. We are living in the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31, when we believed in Jesus.
It says in Jeremiah 31:31 that God will make a New Covenant with Israel and Judah.
God also says in Jeremiah 31:33-34, that under this New Covenant,
“33 I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbour, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,”
This is confirmed in the giving of the Holy Spirit to all believers in Jesus, whereby the Holy Spirit will lead us into "ALL TRUTH" (John 16:13).
If you read God's word, you can depend on the Holy Spirit to teach you all truths, and you will not need to tell one another, "Know the Lord."
Likewise, John confirms in 1 John 2, that we will know the truth because we have the Holy Spirit in us (the anointing), and therefore we do not need anyone to teach us, because the Holy Spirit teaches us ALL THINGS, as seen here below:
1 JOHN 2:20, 27
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.
27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things….
4. For new believers or carnal believers, God has set up teachers in the Church to teach the believers basic truths of God's salvation, as per Ephesians 4:11.
However, God expects and wants all believers to grow to maturity in Christ with a deep walk with the Holy Spiri so that they know all truth, as promised in the words of Jesus, and will not be deceived.
The lack of success in most churches and believers in their growth in Jesus, therefore resulting in a shallow walk with the Holy Spirit, and therefore not understanding God's truths for this hour, does not negate the fact that we are living in the New Covenant as promised in Jeremiah 31:31, and fulfilled by the coming of Jesus as our Passover Lamb.
Thank you for your response. I do appreciate you bringing Scriptures to argue your points but do believe that you misunderstand Paul just as Peter said that you would. You cannot know what Paul was saying unless you know what Paul knew, what Paul was reading. The New Testament did not exist. The Bereans validated Paul with the only Scriptures that they had, The Old Testament, the Tanakh. You make a great argument with the doctrines and dogmas of the westernized Christian church, but this is a reinterpretation through a Greek mindset of events that happened in a Hebrew context. That said, the argument is not very Berean. The whole story in the New Testament is telling a Hebrew/Israelite story, not a Greek one. The Greeks interpreting the story didn't have the correct context to understand the Hebrew context. The modern-day Christian church was formalized hundreds of years after the apostles walked the Earth. It was built on a Greek/Roman [mis]understanding where it ignored its very roots. You would do well to consider my Bible Reading Plan with the reasoning behind what I suggest: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan. My book would also be valuable to your understanding (see my response to Laura). Shalom
Yikes! This is an extremely inaccurate reading of Scripture through a western lens and terribly misinformed.
The Spirit did not teach you this since it contradicts Scripture.
Paul did a sacrifice in Acts to prove he upholds Torah.
“After greeting them, he reported to them in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his service. And when they heard, they began glorifying God. They said, “You see, brother, how many myriads there are among the Jewish people who have believed—and they are all zealous for the Torah. They have been told about you—that you teach all the Jewish people among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to walk according to the customs. What’s to be done then? No doubt they will hear that you have come. “So do what we tell you. We have four men who have a vow on themselves. Take them, and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. That way, all will realize there is nothing to the things they have been told about you, but that you yourself walk in an orderly manner, keeping the Torah. “As for Gentiles who have believed, however, we have written by letter what we decided—for them to abstain from what is offered to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from immorality.” The next day Paul took the men, purifying himself along with them. He went into the Temple, announcing when the days of purification would be completed and the sacrifice would be offered for each one of them.” Acts 21:19-26 TLV
Jews were never called to abandon Torah. And Paul never abandoned Torah.
“When he arrived, the Judeans who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing against him many serious charges which they could not prove. Paul said in his defense, “I have committed no offense against the Torah of the Jewish people, or against the Temple, or against Caesar.””
Acts 25:7-8 TLV
The gentiles though were not directly the recipients of Torah, although many non Jews were present with the Israelites who came out of Egypt.
Paul even circumcised Timothy according to Torah.
“Paul wanted this man to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him for the sake of the Jewish people in those places—for they all knew that his father was Greek.” Acts 16:3 TLV
Even after Yeshua was raised, the talmidin continued meeting in the temple and doing the prayers three times a day that they always had been.
“Day by day they continued with one mind, spending time at the Temple and breaking bread from house to house. They were sharing meals with gladness and sincerity of heart,” Acts 2:46 TLV
“Now Peter and John were going up to the Temple at the ninth hour, the time of prayer.” Acts 3:1 TLV
“Is God the God of the Jewish people only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. Since God is One, He will set right the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then nullify the Torah through faithfulness? May it never be! On the contrary, we uphold the Torah.”
I am with you Andrew. And the whole Greek vs Hebrew claim that all us western folk have been duped (supposedly) for 2000 years, is actually denying the inspiration of the New Testament.
So one can quote scripture endlessly, NT and OT, but they will reinterpret it for you to fit their need to be under the bondage of the law, so they can keep the law and save themselves.
No need to keep the Law "to be saved." That is by grace, not works. We agree on that. Yes, the western church has been duped by the god of this age, Satan deceives the whole world. The western church has used the NT to reinterpret the OT to create an institution that Messiah did not create. That is easy when most of Christianity follows the hard-to-understand Paul instead of Messiah. More sermons are preached on Paul and the use Paul to reinterpret the Gospels and Yeshua's own words. You would benefit from learning the whole story in my book Blessings & Curses:if my people... https://www.blessingsandcursesbook.com. I know, TL;DR. For a shorter read, please consider: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan.
Do you know that the name “Jesus” didn’t even exist until about 500 years ago. The hard “J” was not part of the Alphabet until that time. That name did not exist for three quarters of the two thousand years since He walked the Earth. The name Yeshua has meaning. It was the name that the angle told both Mary and Joseph to call him. We should obey. I will be posting an article about this very thing soon.
I am certain John, and we all can say and write the word Jesus, but His Mother called Him Yeshua, and our Father calls Him Yeshua.. it is not difficult to say, so I say it the way it was given to His family..And one day, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess the NAME!
Oh for Heaven's sake some of these people...However His name is pronounced by WHOEVER doesn't change Who He is! I'm just glad He understands my Southern drawl and He loves us all! Come on, Jesus!
Your not just saying the western church is wrong but the eastern and oriental churches also. You’re saying every Christian has been wrong, not just from 200-300 years after but immediately after the apostles the church supposedly abruptly ended and started teaching heresy. Since what you are teaching “that we all need to be following the Torah”disagrees with the earliest Christian writings. Just to be honest with what you are suggesting.
Additionally it is incorrect to say that Christians say we are not under the law. We still believe in the three uses of the laws as stated during the reformation. Roman Catholics and other believers something similar I believe. The law of grace also isn’t just completely divorced from the old law but transforms it. It hasn’t abolished the law but fulfills it (hence what Christ says). i could bring bible verses to support but i am in my phone if you are interested i could do that though.
Hello Neil, thank you for your comment. I will get right to the point. Yeshua did not come to create a new thing called a church. Unfortunately, the translators of the Bible chose to be disingenuous when they translated the Greek word "ekklesia" in the New Testament. In the Greek Septuagent, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures around 200BCE, the translators translated the Hebrew word we see in our English Bibles as "Assembly," or "Congregation," as "ekklesia." We never see the word "church" in the OT. We must wrestle with the fact that, somehow, the meaning of "ekklesia" magically changed after that page erroneously added to the Bible that says, "New Testament." This means that in Matthew 16:18, Yeshua did not say "I will build by church," He said, "I will build by assembly, my congregation, pointing back to the assembly, the Israelites at Mt. Sinai. Yeshua did say in Matthew 15:24, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." At His first coming, He did not come as the Messiah, the conquering King. He came as "the Prophet" that Moses wrote about, that YHVH promised, in Deuteronomy 18:15, "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him."
I was raised strict Roman Catholic. I spent another most of two decades as an evangelical Protestant (A Protesting Catholic!). I am now neither. Both are two sides of the same coin, a church that Yeshua did not create. I finally read the Bible, asked a lot of questions and arrived at "The Way" given at Sinai is what how we are expected to live.
I must say that you do misunderstand Matthew 5:17-19. You really need to study that in detail. (Here is the first in a three-part series that will help: https://substack.com/@pronomianzoomer/p-173230135). The Law, Torah, is not, and will never be, done away with. Yeshua said that. It is the very Torah that will be written on our hearts when the New Covenant finally arrives, so it cannot have been done away with. I will end here. I cannot articulate everything in a comment on a blog post. That said, I write a lot more on my Substack, "Have you considered this?" and I did take a significant amount of time to write an entire book that goes deep into this and many other things that I offer for your consideration: https://Blessingsandcursesbook.com.
I think one of the biggest issues too is how most Christians define Torah. It does not mean law – it means instruction. The word itself comes from the root “to teach/instruct”.
Torah was YHWH’s instruction to the Israelites on how to live and be set apart from all the nations.
According to the Israelites, Torah is perfect and acts as a lamp to guide them through life. It is refreshing to their lives.
Maybe we should view Torah through Yeshua and everyone’s Bible in their time – the tanakh, not the NT.
“The Torah of Adonai is perfect, restoring the soul. The testimony of Adonai is trustworthy, making the simple wise.” Psalms 19:8 TLV
“Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” Psalms 119:105 TLV
I agree. Unfortunately, most every English translation of the Tanakh will translate it as "Law" so that is, unfortunately, our starting point. I appreciate you bringing this to the discussion.
My point is mostly that you misrepresent what most traditional Christians believe. Although I will agree with you that evangelical churches do abolish the las including the Torah and the renewed law and God’s eternal law depending on how interpret the covenants and such. But again most Protestant churches Anglican Lutheran and Reformed, don’t do away with the law although they believe the law of grace is a transformed version of God’s law. Also putting more emphasis on God’s eternal law separate from the Torah. It is easiest to see this is the sacraments as transformed or fulfilled versions of the Torah. Circumcision and washings to baptism. Christ as the ultimate sacrifice in the Holy Communion. Again just saying I think you misrepresent the beliefs of many Christians to say they have done away with the law.
I don't think that I misrepresent what traditional Christians think. They believe that Grace trumps Torah. Grace is divine empowerment to do Torah and to cover sin when you fail. Not when deliberately failing, when you mistakenly/unknowingly fail. Answer this question from Paul, "Shall we go on sinning so that Grace shall abound?" Sin is violation of Torah (1 John 3:4). Apparently, Christianity answers, "Absolutely!!!" (Paul did not). I wrote a post on Grace because it is a very misunderstood word. You should consider it: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/have-you-considered-this-grace.
I would ask you to define "God's eternal law." I can do it in one word: Torah. What do you mean because it appears that you do not agree with my definition? The word in Jerimiah 31, the Law that will be written on hearts is "Torah." No getting around that. That is what it says. Check a concordance, don't just believe me because I said it. Test it.
Both Catholics and Protestants (Protesting Catholics) violate Deuteronomy 4:2, YHVH speaking, "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you." By eliminating/ignoring those parts of Torah that you can keep, Christianity "subtracts from." By ignoring the Mo'edim (Feasts) commanded by YHVH, they are subtracting. By creating Christmas and Easter out of whole cloth they are "adding to." By not keeping the eternal seventh day Sabbath and switching to Sunday worship, they are both subtracting and adding. I guess if you throughout Deuteronomy then none of this matters (which the church does).
I have made my arguments in the links provided, no need to cite everything here. I have made it very easy for you to dig deeper into what I am saying. There are many other challenging posts on my Substack which would be worth exploring.
Since you asked I will certainly read your article. Although since I have not written any articles to show you. I will recommend The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice
By Daniel Brevint. As it covers through its discussion of Holy Communion the relationship between Old and New Testament
Thank your for your suggestion. I would seriously recommend my book Blessings & Curses:if my people… to dig deeper into all of this: https://blessingsandcursesbook.com
Fearsome! This is the first discussion I've read regarding what the Old and New Covenant are since I ditched dispensationalism. You are right in that most Christians I know believe Jesus paid it all. They, we, serve the Lord by serving others and by love and morality as embodied in the Ten Commandments, but we all believe that it is impossible not to sin, and that is exactly why we need a savior, The Savior. I appreciate your zeal, John, and your research. I've added your book to my Amazon cart. But, as you said in the comments, I will need to reread this article to really absorb it. Right now, I'm wondering where you go as far as the Gentiles inclusion in the cross of Yeshua-Jesus, the Christ. Would you call us all the ungodly because our cornerstone is Christ and Christ alone? For several years now, and maybe because I was a paralegal, I have seen the benefits of obeying good law, law meant for the welfare of all and the purity of an individual. I believe that the law is applicable to us today even though we are saved, and the reason I hold to this is not for salvation, but for the love of God and building his kingdom. Our gratitude, our testimony, our love for God. However, I have only been able to understand the Ten Commandments to be like our federal and state statutes pertaining to our nation, only the Commandment of God are for God's Kingdom, his people, and we are to bless our nation by adhering to God's laws in our time and culture/nation. Then, the rest of the Torah is understood to me to be like case law that interprets the statutes per culture and time and situation. I have understood God's precepts to be "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of slavery" like a whereas clause in a contract, or the Micah passage, "He has shown you, oh man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you, but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." The fact that I even adhere to the above convictions has caused a lot of division in how I practice my faith and how other Christians practice theirs. And, although I believe the Sabbath is to be honored, I have not yet been successful in adhering to it in our culture. The best that I can achieve is to "enter into his rest" as in Hebrews, or to "Be still and know that I am God" as I go about the pragmatics of my day. As the Psalmist wrote, "I have lived too long among the tents of hate." So, yes, I am a conflicted believer seeking the way of truth and still knowing where I belong in my relationship with God. I flinch reading about those Christians who are rebellious to the Torah being lost, but I don't believe I am one. Still, I am growing and learning, so please do what you can to explain yourself more here? Also, there is a pragmatic question about the (rebellious/ungodly/Israeli and Judean) lives lost between the engagement/marriage at Mt. Siani and the culmination of the bride being taken back.
Hi Laura. I so appreciate your comment here. I hear in your remarks someone struggling to find truth. I am right there with you! Keep going; keep struggling with the hard questions; keep praying for guidance. I created this Substack to write about what I am seeing. I read a lot of other people's writing trying to further my understanding. I learn a lot just doing the research to write any given piece. These are small bites, so it is tough to get too deep into a big story which is why I also wrote the book. I do believe a lot of what you questioned of me above is addressed in the book. In that medium I have more space to show the overarching story in a way most don't see and then drill into the details. Sometimes the details are hard to understand outside of the context of the overarching story. You will find many surprises in the book that I don't ask you to believe but to test. I do discuss the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments that are not what you think they are. I also go deep into the Gentile inclusion that you asked about above. In addition, I also point you to other resources that I found valuable that have aided my understanding. I do hope you will read it and would value continuing the discussion afterwards.
Thank you, and I will. I also process through writing and thoughtful discussions and whatever secret treasures God offers ✨️ as I walk with him. Since I'm a poet and musician, or was in my youth, I started rhyming and metering the Psalms, all 150, into hymns to make them accessible to the non liturgical Church. It was this verse by verse meditation that began to change my faith and delight my spirit and make me question things I believed. On Substack, I offer these Psalm Hymns as modern songs for contemplation.
Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:16 that we have the mind of Christ. That means as regenerate believers, we think like Him. When are we ever going to stop thinking like humans, and live FROM the risen Jesus!
So, what is your argument with what I have written? When are we ever going to stop thinking like humans? How about 1 Corinthians 50-57? That is the ultimate regeneration. Has not happened yet, though it will soon!
Hi John. I think you are overthinking salvation (and covenants). It is simple, really. All is revealed to the regenerate to their measure and according to Yahweh’s plan for us. We do not have to work or strive for anything. The Book of Hebrews in Chapter 8 tells us of the better covenant, and concludes with Hebrews 8:13 LSB When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. Please do not engage in linguistic gymnastics with this verse or the whole chapter. Barnabas could not be clearer. His entire message is about the greater High Priest. In my view, he was of equal standing with Paul in the New Testament. After all, he was Paul’s mentor, hence why his book to the Hebrews (and his Epistle) was not attributed to him. He believed everyone knew he was the author. Submission to Jesus is our destiny. The entire Old Testament should be read in the light of the New, not the other way around. Daniel 9:24 tells us that the visions and prophecies of the Hebrew nation have ceased with Jesus. All prophetic utterances since Jesus were by Jesus through Jesus, no matter who wrote them. The New sheds light on the Old. This is the whole message of Jesus. Look at the discussions on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24. Very important message. Who closed their eyes, and who opened them when appropriate?
Hi Geoff. I appreciate your heart felt response. That said, my opinion is that it is 100% backwards. You base what you say on Paul & Barnabas, equating Paul to Barnabas. That said, Peter said you would misunderstand him/them. You are proving the point with this argument. The Bereans verified everything that Paul said using the only Scriptures that they had which we usually call the Old Testament, the Tanakh. There was no New Testament. With that in mind, I always approach the much-misunderstood Paul such that when I think He contradicted the OT, Yeshua, or YHVH that I am misunderstanding Paul; that is a good starting point. You must prove everything that Paul or Barnabas said in the OT; if you can't, you misunderstand Paul/Barnabas. Many things that Christians consider "fulfilled" in the NT are only partially fulfilled at the first coming. Much/most of the prophecy will only find its ultimate fulfillment after the second coming of Messiah. Everything is pointing to the not yet here Kingdom of God here on earth. That will be here very shortly. You really should consider my Bible Reading Plan to put things into the correct order. https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan?r=3qcjns
John, thank you for sharing your article with me. I do appreciate your desire to root the covenant discussion in Jeremiah, the prophets, Torah, and the Tanakh rather than simply accepting later inherited assumptions. On that, I agree with you. The “new covenant” should not be defined apart from Jeremiah 31, and Jeremiah 31 clearly identifies the covenant as being with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It is not a detached church covenant, nor does it erase Torah. The Torah being written on the heart is the opposite of Torah being abolished.
Where I would frame things differently is in how Yeshua’s words at the cup relate to Jeremiah 31.
I do believe Yeshua was intentionally referring to Jeremiah 31 when he spoke of the covenant in his blood. As the appointed mediator, royal Son, heir of David to the throne of Israel, and representative of YHWH, he was not creating a separate covenant disconnected from the prophets. He was ratifying the promised covenant renewal Jeremiah had already announced.
In ancient covenant logic, a covenant did not have to be discarded in order to be renewed. When leadership changed, when a new appointed ruler came forward, or when a people entered a new stage of covenant administration, the covenant could be reaffirmed, reissued, or ratified under the authority of the suzerain. The terms were not abandoned; they were brought forward under renewed administration.
That is how I understand Yeshua’s role. YHWH remains the Suzerain King. Israel and Judah remain the covenant people named in Jeremiah. Yeshua, as YHWH’s appointed Messiah and mediator, ratifies the promised renewal of that covenant relationship because he is Israel's king in the line of David, heir to David's throne. That means Israel is coming under new leadership under the suzerain, God Himself. The Torah is not erased. The people are not replaced. The covenant is brought forward under the authority of the Suzerain through His chosen representative and Israel's King, the heir of David, who will sit on the thone of David when he returns to earth.
I also understand the “all” in Jeremiah 31 within the context of the covenant people being addressed. Jeremiah says the covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, so when the text says “they shall all know Me,” I read that as “all” within the restored covenant people, from the least to the greatest, in Israel. I would not read it as every individual human being on the planet at that point in history. The scope is governed by the covenant parties named in the passage, God and the houses of Israel and Judah.
So, for me, the fact that teaching still continues does not prove Jeremiah 31 is unrelated to Yeshua’s words. It shows that the covenant has been ratified and inaugurated, but its full visible completion has not yet arrived. Yeshua has not returned to earth to sit upon the throne of David over Israel. Scripture often works this way. A covenant can be established before every promise attached to it reaches final fulfillment.
I would also be cautious about pressing the marriage imagery too literally. I agree that Scripture uses marriage language for YHWH and Israel, and that language is powerful. It shows the depth of covenant loyalty, Israel’s unfaithfulness, YHWH’s faithfulness, betrayal through idolatry, and the grief of broken covenant relationship. But I would treat marriage, adultery, and divorce as covenant metaphors rather than as a literal marriage/divorce/remarriage mechanism governed in a wooden way by human marriage law.
The metaphor reveals the seriousness of Israel’s breach and the depth of YHWH’s covenant faithfulness. But I do not think we need to conclude that Yeshua personally married Israel at Sinai or that his death was required so he could legally remarry Israel. I would instead say Yeshua’s death ratifies the promised covenant renewal as the obedient mediator appointed by YHWH if one studies the hierarchy of kingdoms, suzerains, vassels, and covenants.
So where I agree with you is this: Jeremiah 31 is Israel-centered, Torah is not abolished, and the covenant cannot be detached from the prophets.
Where I differ is this: I do believe Yeshua was referring to Jeremiah 31 at the cup. I see his blood as the ratifying blood of that promised covenant renewal, not as a different covenant from Jeremiah’s prophecy.
To put it simply: the covenant is “new” because Israel’s covenant relationship is being restored under transformed conditions of forgiven iniquity, internalized Torah, reunited houses, renewed loyalty, and a new leadership under God. But it is not “new” in the sense of replacing Israel, abolishing Torah, or creating a separate Gentile institution. It is the promised restoration of the covenant people under the authority of YHWH, ratified through His appointed Messiah, the heir of David, the annointed one.
If you would like, I can address each of your points in the article in full where I agree and disagree, but thought maybe I would start with this.
John, thank you again for the thoughtful dialogue. I do appreciate your willingness to step outside many accepted doctrinal assumptions and return the discussion to Scripture, Torah, the prophets, and Israel’s covenant context. That is where I think we have some meaningful agreement.
Where my framework differs is that I try to stay very tightly within the Ancient Near Eastern and Hebraic covenant worldview, without importing later doctrinal or cultural definitions back into the text.
So while I agree that the renewed covenant is not a detached “church” covenant and that Torah is not abolished within Israel’s covenant framework, I would also state my position this way: the renewed covenant of Jeremiah 31 is specifically with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It is Israel’s covenant renewal. It is not made with the nations as nations, and I do not see Torah as the covenant law code assigned to the nations.
Yeshua’s role, in my framework, is Israel’s Messiah as the appointed Son, heir, mediator, and royal representative whom God raised, vindicated, and gave authority over the nations. Through him, Israel’s covenant renewal is ratified, and the nations receive blessing under his God-given authority. But that does not make the renewed covenant itself a Gentile covenant or a universal Torah covenant for all nations.
I also differ strongly on the marriage framework. I agree that Scripture uses marriage language for YHWH and Israel. That imagery is powerful. It shows covenant loyalty, betrayal, faithfulness, grief, and restoration. But I understand that as metaphor, not as a literal legal marriage mechanism.
In the ANE worldview, sovereign covenants and kingship treaties were not treated as actual marriages. Marriage language could be used relationally and poetically to describe the depth of loyalty between a king and his people, or between YHWH and Israel, but the covenant itself remained a kingship/suzerain covenant. So I would not apply human marriage law mechanically to YHWH and Israel, nor would I build a literal divorce/remarriage legal argument from what Scripture presents as covenant metaphor.
That is actually one of the places where I think we part ways most clearly. You are trying to move away from inherited church doctrines, and I respect that. But from my perspective, pressing the marriage metaphor into a literal legal structure still risks reading the text through a later or foreign framework rather than the ANE covenant worldview in which the prophets and hearers operated.
So I would summarize my position this way:
Jeremiah 31 is Israel’s covenant renewal, not a replacement covenant and not a covenant for the nations. Yeshua, as Israel’s appointed Messiah and mediator, ratifies that renewal under the authority of YHWH. The nations are blessed through his authority and through the Abrahamic promise, but they are not made parties to Jeremiah’s renewed covenant in the same way Israel and Judah are. And the marriage imagery should remain metaphorical, serving the larger kingship covenant framework rather than replacing it.
I do appreciate the discussion, though. I think we agree that later inherited doctrines need to be examined carefully. My own approach is simply to strip the framework back even further, all the way back to the ANE worldview, the Hebraic covenant structure, and the categories the biblical authors and original hearers would have understood.
Thank you for adding to the conversation; not everyone does. Others can read our dialog and arrive at their own conclusions after examining the evidence. That should be what we all do. I am 100% sure that I am not 100% correct in anything! I have things to learn and will until my final breath. I will continue exploring and analyzing what I find. I will admit that I still hold to what I wrote in both articles about the New Covenant. Shalom!
Thank you for the respectful dialogue. I truly appreciated it.
My position is that everyone must study and use the framework they believe is for them. Mine is that I do not use any later doctrinal or theological overlay at all. I study through the framework of the original worldview of the authors and how their audience would have understood their words in their time and culture.
Hi Alyson, I relate most closely to your take on this discussion. While the guys are jousting and threatening in testosterone, I'm reading their substance thoroughly. Gregory's list of laws in some ways does seem doable to me since I was raised with a Seventh Day Adventist father, but I do not feel at home in the Jewish framework. I don't like the reinterpretation of denominational churches as to not following the law at all, however. I believe it is not for salvation, but for the welfare of the whole community, and because it reflects personally on our God and his ownership of his people, our allegiance to him.
Heretics Anonymous brought forward another argument of the new church leaders' decision from Acts 21:19-26 TLV, that they only require the Gentiles not to eat blood, not be immoral and not eat food sacrificed to idols. Of course, that seems much easier, and for me, I can aim for something like this. However, is it meant as the definitive version of the Torah for us to observe today?
I guess with all the Torah obedience stuff thrown on the table and me believing that Yeshua-Jesus Christ actually expanded the covenant to include the Gentiles through his extravagant grace via his work on Calvary, that I am really searching to know and obey God in the design he has for us wild branches.
Laura, thank you for such a thoughtful response. I appreciate the way you are trying to sort through the substance without getting pulled into the jousting. That is where I try to stay too, though I admit I sometimes have to take a deep breath first.
I agree with you that Torah is very useful for study, wisdom, and even the welfare of a community. Torah is deeply community-oriented. It teaches justice, care for the poor, honest judgment, protection of the vulnerable, sexual boundaries, restitution, responsibility, reverence for God, and loyalty to the covenant order He established with Israel. It also reflects personally on God because Torah was given to His chosen nation as their covenant instruction. So I would never treat Torah as something dirty, failed, or worthy of mockery as some have. It is holy instruction given to a holy people, and I will honor it as such.
Where I make a distinction is between Torah as Israel’s covenant law code and Torah as a witness to God’s moral order and wisdom.
I do not believe the nations are under Sinai Torah as Israel is. Jeremiah 31 names the parties of the renewed covenant: the house of Israel and the house of Judah. That covenant renewal belongs to Israel. Yeshua is Israel’s Messiah, appointed by God and given authority over the nations by God. Through him, the nations receive blessing, mercy, and accountability under God’s appointed king, but that does not mean Gentiles become Israel or that the nations are placed under Torah as Israel’s covenant law code.
That is where Acts 15 and Acts 21 are important. The apostles did not require Gentiles to become Jews or take on Torah as Israel’s national covenant identity. The instructions given to Gentiles, abstaining from idolatry, blood, strangled things, and sexual immorality, seem to address basic boundaries for Gentiles turning from idolatry to the God of Israel and entering fellowship with Jewish believers. Again, entering fellowship, not Israel or Torah. I would not call that a “Gentile Torah,” but I would call it an apostolic ruling for Gentile table fellowship in the Jewish community in the land, and allegiance to God Himself and His Son.
So no, I do not think Acts 15 is giving Gentiles a miniature Torah or the full definitive moral list for all time. Gentiles are still accountable to God’s universal moral order. Murder, idolatry, sexual immorality, oppression, theft, bloodshed, and injustice are wrong for all people, not only Israel. But the nations are not under Torah in the same covenantal way Israel is. The universal moral law is contained within Torah because Israel is also under the same Creator and King as the nations, but Torah as a whole was given specifically to Israel as Israel’s covenant instruction especially as stewards in the land. Think of it like this. In a kingdom, a group stewards where the king dwells (typically called the royal house, compound, etc.) and they live by stricter law given by the king than those who live further out in the kingdom. They are under the universal kingdom laws, but also under the more definitive laws where they steward for the king as he chooses. Israel is the steward in the land that God chose in covenant with Abraham. And even within the land, Torah differs for each part of Israel as a people depending on where they live and serve within the land. One of the best ways to understand universal law is to look at the Ten Commandments. All of them are universal. Now the fourth one, Remember the Sabbath, is not as Torah commands Israel, but God saying that He sanctified and blessed the day He sat on the throne and we should remember and honor that day by recognizing Him as King. Not like literally every Saturday, but the day after creation that God sat on His throne when He was done establishing His Kingdom on earth. For Israel, it became a sign of the covenant between God and Israel, and they are to honor it in a different way than the nations to show that God is King as stewards in the land and to show that He brought them out of Eygpt. That’s a whole other point, too long for this comment right now.
As for ANE worldview, that means “Ancient Near Eastern worldview.” It is the cultural, historical, legal, and religious world in which the biblical authors lived and wrote. So instead of beginning with later church doctrines, denominational categories, or modern assumptions, I try to ask: How would the original author and audience have understood this? What did covenant, king, land, temple, priesthood, law, inheritance, exile, sonship, and nations mean in their world?
For example, in the ANE world, covenants were often kingship/suzerain agreements. A great king gave terms to a people or lesser king. That helps me understand Torah as Israel’s covenant instruction under YHWH as their Great King. It also helps me understand Yeshua as Israel’s appointed Messiah, the royal son and mediator through whom God advances His kingdom purposes and extends authority over the nations.
That framework helps me keep the categories distinct: Israel is Israel, the nations are the nations, Torah is Israel’s covenant law, and the nations are invited into blessing and allegiance under God’s appointed king without being turned into Israel under the universal law of God’s universal Kingdom.
So I agree with you that Torah is valuable, beautiful, and deeply useful. I do not say Gentiles are under Torah as their covenant code. I would say Gentiles are under the authority of God, the Great King of the Universe. and His appointed Messiah, King over Israel under God, given authority over the nations, accountable to His universal moral order, and invited to learn from Torah as a witness to His justice and wisdom.
Alyson, I deeply resonate with the Torah as the witness to God’s law! This makes so much sense to me. I’ve read it that way my whole life but have recently become confused the more I got into creating and using the verse-by-verse teachings of the Psalms into modern music for believers to use for meditation, praise, and worship. At first, they ministered to me through history and the psychology of these lyrics written by someone in David’s courts or by his musicians or by Moses or Solomon. But fellow Christians resent the inclusion of the psalmists’ terminology about wicked people, evil doers, supplicants pleading for God’s vengeance and favor, and the continued mentioning of law, precepts, statutes, and testimonies. I’m a paralegal, so I understand the framework of these words in our courts and jurisdiction, but what did they specifically refer to in scripture?
The more I studied precepts, statutes, testimonies, the covenant, and that the new covenant is applicable only to Israel and Judea, the more I needed to reorganize my own faith and understanding of scripture application to me and those like me. That brought me to Baptism and then Communion.
How do you understand the Passover Meal, (Last Supper) whether it was friends gathered together before the official meal, i.e. possibly the Apostle John’s remembering?
Also, what work did Christ do in his death?
Atonement?
Expand the covenant to include the nations as to the benefits of God, but not held to the Torah laws?
Are God’s laws written on our hearts now, after Yeshua’s work, or is that aspect still coming in the new heaven and earth? I definitely know that all but Machiavellian narcissists have a guiding conscience, but I don’t believe that is the same thing as God’s laws written on our hearts in the way that he describes everyone knowing God personally.
I’ve subscribed to your Substack, so I am looking forward to reading more.
Laura, thank you for this. I really appreciate the way you are thinking through this carefully, especially with your paralegal background. I think that may actually help you see some of these categories more clearly than many people do, because words like law, testimony, statute, covenant, witness, judgment, and jurisdiction are not vague religious words. They carry legal and covenant weight.
When the Psalms speak of law, precepts, statutes, testimonies, commandments, ordinances, and judgments, they are usually speaking from inside Israel’s covenant world. These are not just “nice moral thoughts.” They are the words and rulings of Israel’s Great King. Torah is Israel’s covenant instruction, but it also bears witness to God’s wisdom, justice, order, mercy, and righteousness. So when the psalmists delight in Torah, they are delighting in the King’s instruction and in the ordered life He gave His covenant people.
That does not mean every line applies to Gentiles in the same covenantal way it applied to Israel. But it does mean the Psalms still teach us what God loves, what He hates, how He judges, how He defends the vulnerable, how He responds to wickedness, and how His people cry out to Him for justice. We must remember that God called Israel to be a holier nation as stewards in the land where He did and will dwell again. So... they are the example of how to live under God which we should emulate, but that does not mean we come under Torah exclusively given to them as examples and stewards.
That is also why the language about the wicked, evildoers, vengeance, judgment, and favor can feel uncomfortable to modern Christians. Many have been taught a very softened vocabulary of worship. But the Psalms are royal, covenantal, legal, emotional, and honest. They teach us that God’s kingdom is not sentimental. It is righteous. He does not merely comfort the wounded; He also judges oppression, violence, deceit, and rebellion.
On the Passover/Last Supper question, I would hold it carefully. I do think Yeshua’s death belongs in the Passover framework. Yeshua is taking the bread and cup and placing his own death inside Israel’s covenant story of deliverance, blood, exodus, and restoration. The argument of whether it was a Passover meal or not is a circular one that many continue in. Me, Yeshua did participate in the Passover, but not the meal, as the Passover lamb. I have some articles on this subject. Here is one...
Also, I do not think he was inventing a detached Christian ritual out of nowhere. He was giving covenant meaning to what was about to happen to him. His death would become the blood-ratification moment of the promised covenant renewal, tied to Israel’s restoration, and through him the nations would also receive blessing.
As for what Yeshua’s death accomplished, I would say several things.
Yes, atonement is part of it. His death deals with sin, guilt, and estrangement. But I would not reduce his death only to a courtroom transaction. His death also ratifies covenant renewal, vindicates his faithful obedience, opens the way for Israel’s restoration, defeats the power of death through resurrection, and establishes him as the appointed mediator through whom God extends mercy and authority to the nations.
I would say Yeshua’s work brings the nations into the benefits of God’s promise through Abraham and through Israel’s Messiah, but not by placing the nations under Torah as Israel’s covenant law code. The nations, already under the authority of God universally as the Great King, are brought under the authority of God’s appointed King of Israel on earth. They receive mercy, forgiveness, resurrection hope, and choose allegiance to the God through Yeshua. But they do not become Israel, and they are not required to take on Israel’s Torah jurisdiction.
On the law written on the heart, I would distinguish conscience from Jeremiah 31.
I do believe all humanity has some moral awareness because all humanity belongs to God as Creator. Paul’s language in Romans 2 suggests that Gentiles can show the work of the law written in some sense through conscience. But I do not think that is the same thing as Jeremiah 31. If we look back before Torah, many of the nations and whole nations, even all humanity except Noah and family, were judged under a universal law which Torah contains because Israel is also under the same universal law, but, again, that doesn't make Torah itself over the nations.
Jeremiah 31 is specifically about the renewed covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. That promise includes God writing Torah on the heart, forgiving iniquity, and a future state where all within that restored covenant people know Him. Ezekiel 36 gives similar restoration language: new heart, new spirit, cleansed from idols, restored to the land, and caused to walk in God’s statutes.
So I would say that full Jeremiah 31 reality is not completely here yet. It has been inaugurated through Yeshua, but not fully consummated. We still teach. We still wrestle. We still misunderstand. We still repent. That tells me the fullness of “they shall all know Me” is still ahead.
For Gentiles, I would not say Torah is written on our hearts in the Jeremiah 31 sense, because Jeremiah names Israel and Judah. But I would say Gentiles who God’s appointed Messiah is placed in authority over are called into allegiance, receive God’s mercy, are shaped by His Spirit, and learn His wisdom and justice through Scripture. We are not lawless. We are accountable to God’s universal moral order and to the authority He gave Yeshua.
So, in simple form:
Torah is Israel’s covenant instruction.
The Psalms teach us God’s justice, wisdom, judgment, mercy, and covenant faithfulness.
Yeshua’s death deals with exile and sin, and ratifies the path of restoration.
The nations receive blessing through Israel’s Messiah without becoming Israel or coming under Torah as Israel.
Jeremiah 31’s full heart-written-Torah reality belongs to Israel’s restoration and is not fully complete yet.
Gentiles are still called to faithful allegiance to God and to His appointed Son.
I am so glad you subscribed, and I really appreciate your thoughtful questions. These are exactly the kinds of questions that help us slow down and rebuild our understanding carefully rather than just inheriting categories that may not fit the text.
You’ve spent a lot of time typing out a long-winded, Hebrew-flavored funeral for the Grace of God, and I’m going to tell you exactly where you jumped the track.
1. You’re Worshipping a Vowel You Can't See
You want to play "Interchangeable Hebrew" with chadash. You admit the text says "New," but then you dive into the "no vowels in the original" routine to try and force "Renewed" into the verse. Friend, that’s a con game.
The Holy Ghost settled that "opinion" of yours in Hebrews 8:13. He said, "In that he saith, A NEW covenant, he hath made the first OLD." If it’s just "renewed," then the first isn't old: it’s just got a fresh coat of paint! You’re calling the Writer of Hebrews a liar because he didn't use your preferred "re-tread" definition.
2. The "Hebrew Conversation" Hoax
You say those Jewish men weren't speaking Greek at the table. How do you know? Greek was the lingua franca of the day. But even if they were speaking Swahili, the Bible was written in Greek! When you say the choice of kainos was someone’s "opinion" to "inject a predetermined conclusion," you are attacking Inspiration. You’re saying God the Holy Spirit was too weak to make sure the right word got onto the parchment. If I have to choose between a Greek manuscript preserved for 2,000 years and your "leaning toward" a different word, I’m picking the Book every time.
3. You’re Trying to Marry a Corpse
You’re obsessed with the "Law of the Marriage" in Deuteronomy 24 and Romans 7. You say Yeshua had to die so He could "remarry" Israel.
Listen, son, Romans 7:4 says:
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another..." We aren't "re-marrying" the Law! We are married to a Risen Christ. You want the Church to be a "re-grafted" appendage to a national covenant that belongs to the Jews in the Millennium. You’re trying to put a tuxedo on a man who’s already been resurrected and tell him he’s still bound to his first wife’s kitchen rules.
4. The "Lawlessness" Scare Tactics
You quote Matthew 7:23 about "workers of lawlessness" to scare people into keeping the Torah. You think "Lawlessness" means "Not keeping the 613 laws of Moses."
If that’s true, then Paul is the biggest 'worker of lawlessness' in history! He’s the one who said, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" (Romans 10:4). "Lawlessness" isn't failing to keep the Sabbath; it's rejecting the Authority of God. And the biggest act of lawlessness a man can commit is trying to pay for his seat at the Wedding Supper with his own "filthy rag" works of the Law.
My Advice to You:
Put down the Hebrew lexicon and pick up the Book. Stop trying to turn the "Great Commission" into a "Torah Training Seminar." We aren't "native branches" or "wild branches" trying to find a synagogue; we are the Body of Christ, and our citizenship is in Heaven, not in a "one-stick" earthly kingdom that hasn't started yet.
You’re so worried about people "playing church" that you’ve started "playing Pharisee." You want a "Renewed" covenant because you’re scared of a New one that leaves your self-righteousness in the dirt.
Gregory, Gregory, Gregory, do you not see the very contradiction in your very first point? You are assuming that the translators got it right. You see “New” in your English text as trust that is the correct translation. You may even look behind that to Greek and see “New,” and say it is settled. Do you not know that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew? Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, wrote that Matthew was written in Hebrew and many came and did their best to translate it. He didn’t sound 100% confident in their work. There are many Hebrew copies of Mathew that are not translations from Greek. Go do a little homework on that (there are also other native, not translations from Greek, Hebrew NT texts).
As to your second point, the “Hebrew Conversation” Hoax. No matter what you want to say, it was a bunch of Hebrews sitting around the table, not Romans, not Greeks; they were Hebrews, mostly from the tribe of Judah, but also Benjamin and Levi. They kept their heritage. They probably spoke the common languages in public but in private I strongly believe they reverted to their native tongue. You can easily see that in the world today if you but look. I live in Texas and have many Hispanic people around me. They can speak English, and do around me, but when they are amongst their own, they revert to Spanish. This is nothing new. Quit trying to make them into Greeks/Romans. This has always been a Hebrew story!
Marry a Corpse? Are you not expecting to be at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Are you not expecting a marriage? The church is not the bride; never has been, never will be. The bride is, and always will be, Israel. Read Romans 11. Who is grafted into who? Believers are grafted into Israel. That is what it says. You really do not understand what is coming. Tear that page that says “New Testament” out of your Bible and read it as one story, because it is.
Romans 7:4 could be restated as “But Paul…” The very much misunderstood Paul. Peter promised that we would misunderstand him, and you are proving Peter to be correct. If you ever see Paul contradicting the OT, Yeshua, or YHVH, you misunderstand Paul. It is that simple. You would be wise to consider my Bible reading plan and get things into their proper order. https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan
Lawlessness is not a scare tactic. If you want to ignore the Law, be prepared to be called “Least in the Kingdom of Heaven.” Those are Yeshua’s words, Read Matthew 5. More of Yeshua’s words, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” The Lawless are those that discard the instructions of Yah, His Torah. Satan is called the lawless one. The Greco-Roman church has thrown out the law, so it is lawless. Not good company to keep!
That was a very nice try. You do regurgitate the Greco-Roman church doctrine very well, as I once did. Yeshua said, “Satan deceives the whole world.” You believe that to be everyone one but you and your denomination. I don’t think that is going to work out well. Let me leave you with some words from Paul: “Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
Don’t love the truth? God Himself sends a powerful delusion for they delight in wickedness. Wickedness is violating Yah’s instructions, His Torah; you do not get to define that! Paul wrote that in the New Testament!
I have done my job as an Ezekiel 33 watchman. I have sounded the shofar and warned of the approaching danger. Whatever happens to you is on your head. Hopefully this helps someone come out of Babylon (The western, Greco-Roman church).
You are actually standing there telling people they have got to keep the "commandments"? Which ones?
All 613 of them?
You better hope your "Hebrew roots" are deep enough to handle the weight of the whole tree, because James 2:10 says:
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
That means if you manage to keep 612 of those statutes but you accidentally wear a wool-poly blend sock or eat a piece of catfish, you are just as much a lawbreaker as a murderer!
You are as guilty as the Devil himself in the eyes of a Holy God.
You cannot treat the Bible like a cafeteria line where you pick the "Sabbath" and the "Feasts" but leave the Levitical sacrifices and the stoning of rebels in the pan.
You want Moses?
You get the whole man, whiskers and all!
That means no more shrimp cocktails.
No more cheeseburgers. No more mixed fabrics. And you better have a backyard full of turtledoves ready for every time you have a "lawless" thought, because the Law does not grade on a curve!
You think you are "honoring God" by going back to the Torah?
Paul called that Law the "ministration of death" in 2 Corinthians 3:7.
It was not given to make you holy; it was given to kill you!
Its only job is to show you that you are a failure and that you need Christ’s righteousness.
Yours is nothing but "filthy rags."
If salvation depended on you keeping those 613 laws, you would not last until breakfast without earning a trip to Hell.
The Law is a mirror to show you your dirty face, not a bar of soap to wash it with.
So go ahead, "Watchman," saddle up for Moses.
But I am warning you: it is not just a "bumpy ride."
It is a head-on collision with the Justice of God, and you are driving a car with no brakes and a lead foot.
Gravity doesn’t negotiate and neither does the Justice of God Almighty.
I will stay in the City of Refuge under the Blood. You can stay out in the desert with a dead man named Moses.
Long answer: I would challenge you to even enumerate the 613 Laws that you are so adamant that you must not keep. You might accidently keep one; what then? Not one person was ever expected to keep every Law. Does that surprise you? Some were only for men; others only for women. That immediately eliminates some. Some only for farmers, that eliminates more for people that are not farmers. Others are only for Levites, and some only for Priests, descendants of Aaron; that eliminates many more that most of us do not have to keep; they don't apply to us. Many of those are only applicable if there is a Temple or Tabernacle and a functioning Levitical Priesthood; neither of those apply at the current time. You will only be held to account for those that you can keep, not for what you can't. Now it is a matter of will. Will you choose to obey that which you can? I choose to obey.
You don't even realize that the bacon, catfish, and shrimp cocktail, etc. that you love are the result of the curses of Leviticus 26; curses for not being obedient to Torah. They bring parasites and cause disease. Just look around at how healthy the average American is, how many pharmaceuticals many are on just to mitigate the symptoms. Cancer is caused by parasites (look it up). We would eliminate a lot of disease if we ate Biblically clean, as God commanded. But go ahead, worship the idol of your belly, have that BLT and Easter Ham! I gave up Biblically unclean food when I learned that was what we are required to do. It is not easy because unclean food is everywhere. In fact, unclean food is not even food! Go read Leviticus 11, unless you have already torn it from your Bible.
I do strive very hard to not wear mixed fabrics. I look primarily for 100% cotton clothing. It is hard to find, not impossible. I might still have a few stragglers in my closed but as I find them, I am discarding them.
I also wear tassels, tzitzit, on my clothing as commanded. It is very obvious. We are supposed to be "a peculiar people." We are not supposed to look like the world around us, the fallen world. We should be considered weird by not eating as they do, not dressing as they do, not resting as they do (keeping Shabbat and the other High Holy Days.) Do you look weird or do you just blend in with the multitude on the wide road that leads to destruction that many (most) will find?
Allow me to show you some of the times that you blaspheme Yehovah with your beliefs:
1. Deuteronomy 30:11, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." He is speaking of His Law, His Torah, His instructions on how we are to live. He said it is not too difficult, that you can do it, but you say it is impossible. Go ahead call Him a liar.
2. Malachi 3:6-7, "I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you." He says that He does not change. You say that you turn the page to Matthew and every thing changed, that He changed. Call Him a liar; go ahead!
3. Matthew 5:17-19, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Those are Yeshua's words. Yeshua and the Father are one (John 10:30). He said don't even think that He would abolish Torah; don't even think it! This is only a few pages after Malachi 3:6-7 in you Bible. He has told you twice that it won't change; but you say it all changed. Again, call Him a liar! You keep doing it.
4. Luke 1:5-6, "In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly." Two mortal human beings being called "blameless" in God's commands. These are Levites, more specifically descendants of Aaron. The requirements of the Law were much higher on them, but God considered them blameless. You say it is impossible to keep the Law; they did. God said they did and were called blameless. Go ahead call Him a liar yet again!
Enough of that. I am tired of you calling my God a liar. Quit blaspheming Him!
You are looking for any way possible to be disobedient. That doesn't end well.
Consider Romans 15:4, "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope." The only Scriptures that they had, what he was referring to, was what you call the Old Testament. That was for your instruction, to teach you. That includes Torah. Have you torn that part out of your Bible yet? If you consider it all worthless, why do you keep it in the book, just to add heft?
Keep on with what you believe, keep calling Yehovah a liar and I am afraid that you are in danger of hearing, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’" (Matthew 7:21-23) Lawlessness means those who are without Torah; those who forsook the Torah.
To carry out the laws of "Cherem" (devoted property)—Leviticus 27:28
Not to sell "Cherem" property—Leviticus 27:28
Not to redeem "Cherem" property—Leviticus 27:28
Not to sow mixed seeds—Leviticus 19:19
Not to sow mixed seeds in a vineyard—Deuteronomy 22:9
Not to mate different species of animals—Leviticus 19:19
Not to work with different species of animals yoked together—Deuteronomy 22:10
Not to wear "Sha'atnez" (wool and linen together)—Deuteronomy 22:11
To leave the corner of the field (Peah) for the poor—Leviticus 19:9
Not to harvest Peah completely—Leviticus 19:9
To leave gleanings (Leket) for the poor—Leviticus 19:9
Not to gather Leket—Leviticus 19:9
To leave the individual fallen grapes (Peret)—Leviticus 19:10
Not to gather Peret—Leviticus 19:10
To leave the unformed grape clusters (Oleloth)—Leviticus 19:10
Not to gather Oleloth—Leviticus 19:10
To leave forgotten sheaves (Shich'chah)—Deuteronomy 24:19
Not to go back to take forgotten sheaves—Deuteronomy 24:19
To set aside the "Poor Man's Tithe"—Deuteronomy 14:28
To give Charity (Tzedakah)—Deuteronomy 15:8
Not to withhold charity from the poor—Deuteronomy 15:7
To set aside the "Terumah Gedolah" (for the Priest)—Deuteronomy 18:4
The Levite must set aside a tithe of his tithe—Numbers 18:26
Not to eat the tithe (Ma'aser Sheni) outside Jerusalem—Deuteronomy 12:17
Not to eat the Second Tithe of wine outside Jerusalem—Deuteronomy 12:17
Not to eat the Second Tithe of oil outside Jerusalem—Deuteronomy 12:17
The Levites must have no portion in the land—Deuteronomy 18:1
The Levites must have no share in the spoils of war—Deuteronomy 18:1
To give the Priest his share of the shoulder, cheeks, and stomach—Deuteronomy 18:3
To set aside the "First Shearing" for the Priest—Deuteronomy 18:4
To carry out the laws of the "Red Heifer"—Numbers 19:2
To carry out the laws of "Ritual Impurity" from the dead—Numbers 19:14
To carry out the laws of the "Water of Purification"—Numbers 19:21
To carry out the laws of "Leprosy" (Tzara'at) in people—Leviticus 13:2
The leper must not remove signs of impurity—Deuteronomy 24:8
The leper must not shave the signs of impurity—Leviticus 13:33
The leper must publicize his condition—Leviticus 13:45
To carry out the laws of leprosy in garments—Leviticus 13:47
To carry out the laws of leprosy in houses—Leviticus 14:34
To carry out the laws of a "Zav" (man with a discharge)—Leviticus 15:2
To carry out the laws of a "Zavah" (woman with a discharge)—Leviticus 15:25
To carry out the laws of a menstruant—Leviticus 15:19
To carry out the laws of a woman after childbirth—Leviticus 12:2
To carry out the laws of a "Ba'al Keri" (nocturnal emission)—Leviticus 15:16
To carry out the laws of impurity of animal carcasses—Leviticus 11:39
To carry out the laws of impurity of creeping things—Leviticus 11:29
To immerse in a Mikvah for purification—Leviticus 15:16
The court must carry out the laws of "Capital Punishment"—Exodus 21:12
Now, I’ve only given you about half of 'em here, but that should be enough to make your head spin! You want to talk about "Torah observance"? You better be ready to find a Red Heifer and a Priest from the line of Aaron, because without them, about half of this list is impossible to keep, which makes you a lawbreaker by default!
Still want to "saddle up for Moses," son? Or are you ready to admit you need the Blood of Jesus Christ? Amen? Amen!
(Note: Since the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., these are physically impossible to keep today. That hasn't stopped the "Torah-Keepers" from pretending, though!)
To repent and confess wrongdoings—Numbers 5:7
To say the Shema twice daily—Deuteronomy 6:7
To serve God with prayer daily—Exodus 23:25
The Priests (Kohanim) must bless the nation daily—Numbers 6:23
To wear Tefillin on the head—Deuteronomy 6:8
To bind Tefillin on the arm—Deuteronomy 6:8
To put a Mezuzah on each doorpost—Deuteronomy 6:9
Each male must write a Sefer Torah—Deuteronomy 31:19
The King must write a separate Sefer Torah—Deuteronomy 17:18
To have Tzitzit on four-cornered garments—Numbers 15:38
To bless God after eating—Deuteronomy 8:10
To circumcise all males on the 8th day—Leviticus 12:3
To rest on the Sabbath—Exodus 23:12
Not to do prohibited labor on Sabbath—Exodus 20:10
The court must not punish on Sabbath—Exodus 35:3
Not to walk more than 2000 cubits on Sabbath—Exodus 16:29
To sanctify the day with Kiddush and Havdalah—Exodus 20:8
To rest on Yom Kippur—Leviticus 23:32
Not to work on Yom Kippur—Leviticus 23:31
To afflict yourself (fast) on Yom Kippur—Leviticus 16:29
Not to eat or drink on Yom Kippur—Leviticus 23:29
To rest on the 1st day of Passover—Leviticus 23:7
Not to work on the 1st day of Passover—Leviticus 23:8
To rest on the 7th day of Passover—Leviticus 23:8
Not to work on the 7th day of Passover—Leviticus 23:8
To rest on Shavuot—Leviticus 23:21
Not to work on Shavuot—Leviticus 23:21
To rest on Rosh Hashanah—Leviticus 23:24
Not to work on Rosh Hashanah—Leviticus 23:25
To rest on Sukkot—Leviticus 23:35
Not to work on Sukkot—Leviticus 23:35
To rest on Shemini Atzeret—Leviticus 23:36
Not to work on Shemini Atzeret—Leviticus 23:36
Not to eat Chametz on afternoon of 14th Nissan—Deuteronomy 16:3
To destroy all Chametz on 14th Nissan—Exodus 12:15
Not to eat Chametz all 7 days of Passover—Exodus 13:3
Not to eat mixtures with Chametz during Passover—Exodus 12:20
Chametz should not be seen in your domain—Exodus 13:7
Chametz should not be found in your domain—Exodus 12:19
To eat Matzah on the first night of Passover—Exodus 12:18
To relate the Exodus that night—Exodus 13:8
To hear the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah—Numbers 29:1
To dwell in a Sukkah for 7 days—Leviticus 23:42
To take up a Lulav and Etrog—Leviticus 23:40
To give a half-shekel annually—Exodus 30:13
Courts must determine the new month—Exodus 12:2
To cry out to God in times of catastrophe—Numbers 10:9
To marry a wife via Kiddushin—Deuteronomy 24:1
Not to have relations with women not married this way—Deuteronomy 23:18
Not to withhold food, clothing, or relations from a wife—Exodus 21:10
To have children—Genesis 1:28
To issue a divorce via a "Get"—Deuteronomy 24:1
A man must not remarry his ex-wife after she married another—Deuteronomy 24:4
To perform Yibum (marry brother's childless widow)—Deuteronomy 25:5
To perform Chalitzah (freeing the widow)—Deuteronomy 25:9
A man must not marry the woman he did Chalitzah with—Deuteronomy 25:10
The rapist must marry his victim (if she agrees)—Deuteronomy 22:29
He must never divorce her—Deuteronomy 22:29
The slanderer (of a wife's virginity) must remain married—Deuteronomy 22:19
He must never divorce her—Deuteronomy 22:19
Not to have relations with one's mother—Leviticus 18:7
Not to have relations with one's father's wife—Leviticus 18:8
Not to have relations with one's sister—Leviticus 18:9
Not to have relations with father's wife's daughter—Leviticus 18:11
Not to have relations with son's daughter—Leviticus 18:10
Not to have relations with daughter's daughter—Leviticus 18:10
Not to have relations with one's daughter—Leviticus 18:10
Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter—Leviticus 18:17
Not to have relations with a woman and her son's daughter—Leviticus 18:17
Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter's daughter—Leviticus 18:17
Not to have relations with father's sister—Leviticus 18:12
Not to have relations with mother's sister—Leviticus 18:13
Not to have relations with father's brother's wife—Leviticus 18:14
Not to have relations with son's wife—Leviticus 18:15
Not to have relations with brother's wife—Leviticus 18:16
Not to have relations with wife's sister—Leviticus 18:18
Now listen here, "Watchman," I hear that shofar you’re blowing, but it sounds more like a kazoo played by a man who’s lost his way in a Hebrew dictionary! You want to talk about contradictions? You’re standing on a platform made of "lost" manuscripts and "private" conversations that don't exist in the light of day.
Let's look at this "Babylon" you think I'm living in:
1. The "Hebrew Matthew" Mirage
You’re citing Papias and "Hebrew copies" of Matthew. Son, those Shem-Tob manuscripts didn't show up until the 1300s! You’re taking a medieval document and trying to use it to overrule the Textus Receptus. You say Papias wasn't "100% confident"? I don't care if Papias was shaking like a leaf; the Holy Spirit was confident when He preserved the Greek text that shook the world!
If God can't keep His words pure in the language He chose to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles, then He’s not much of a God. You’re basically saying we’ve been "deluded" for 1,900 years until you and your website came along to fix it. That's not "truth," friend. That’s pride.
2. The Spanish-Speaking Apostle?
Your Texas analogy is real cute, but it’s a total wreck. If I speak Spanish at home but write a legal contract in English, the English contract is the law. God chose to write the New Testament in Greek to reach the world. You’re trying to peek through the keyhole of the Upper Room to "strongly believe" in a conversation you didn't hear, while ignoring the written record God put in your hand. You’re trading a "Thus saith the Lord" for a "I reckon they probably said."
3. Paul vs. Your Plan
You say if Paul contradicts your view of the Torah, then I "misunderstand Paul." No, sir. If Paul says we are "not under the law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14), and you say we are under the law, then you are the one contradicting the Apostle.
You’re trying to "graft" the Church into a national identity that Paul said was done away with in Christ. In the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28). You’re trying to build a middle wall of partition that Jesus Christ tore down!
4. Who’s Lawless?
You keep throwing "Lawlessness" around like a hot potato. You think the "delusion" is Grace. I’m telling you the delusion is Work-Salvation disguised as "heritage."
• Your Truth: Keep the Torah or be "least" and "unknown."
• The Bible’s Truth: Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4).
You want to talk about Matthew 7? The people Jesus turned away were the ones bragging about what they had done, their "many wonderful works." They weren't trusting in the Blood; they were trusting in their performance. That’s you, J.G.! You’re standing there with your tassels and your reading plan, telling God how well you’ve kept His instructions.
The Shofar’s Final Note
You’ve done your "job" as a watchman? Well, I’m doing mine as a Bible Believer. You’re telling people to "come out of Babylon," but you’re leading them straight back to Mount Sinai, a mountain that gendereth to bondage (Galatians 4:24).
I don't need your reading plan. I have a Book that hasn't changed, a Savior who finished the work, and a New Testament that means exactly what it says in plain English. If that makes me a "Greco-Roman" in your eyes, then "Hail Caesar," because I’m saved by Grace and I’m not going back to the "beggarly elements" of the law for nobody!
Enjoy your "one stick," son. I’ll be at the Marriage Supper because I’m part of the Body of the Groom! Amen? Amen!
I am only replying now so that other who find it in the future will see the rebuttal. Honestly, all of your arguments summarize down to "But Paul..." The much misunderstood Paul, Peters words (2 Peter 3:16). You prove Peter right. I have said my piece. I will waste no more time on this thread as I made my case in the original article and in several replies to you. I have a Substack that expands on these things, and I wrote a book that you can find there to go deeper.
You keep following your Grecko-Roman Jesus, the one created in the fourth century, long after Yeshua lived and after the apostles were long dead. The Hebrew, Israelite of the tribe of Judah, Yeshua, kept Torah. We are told to walk as He walked (1 John 2:6). You keep arguing "But Paul..." You claim to be part of the bride, but you won't even obey the house rules or the marriage vows!! Good luck with that.
We're done! You will never convince me to be Lawless (been there, done that). I just pray that you will quit influencing other to be that way.
14 ¶ But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 ¶ But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
You say we’re "done." Fine by me! You can head back to your website and keep trying to "renew" a marriage contract that resulted in a divorce decree. You keep trying to be a "good bride" by keeping "house rules" that were designed to show you that you’re a failure.
I’ll stay right here with the Resurrected King who gave me His own righteousness as a gift. I’m not "influencing people to be lawless"; I’m influencing them to be Free!
If you want to spend your life in the kitchen scrubbing the pots of the Law, that’s your business. But I’m going to be at the table, eating the feast that the Groom already paid for.
Gregory, I read through your comments, and I will say plainly that while I disagree with John on several points, I disagree with your framework much more deeply. John and I have points where we agree and points where we agree to disagree. With your argument, however, I think the foundation itself is misplaced. And your tone from the beginning unbecoming of any Christian towards Torah or anyone who wants to follow it. It's purpose is for a holier nation to steward in the land, and to mock it in any way is mocking the commandments God gave that nation to follow and serve Him in the land.
I am happy to go point by point with you, every last one of them, but I will start with the major issues first among your points.
First, your repeated contrast between “grace” and “Torah” assumes a later Christian framework that Scripture itself does not require. Torah was not given to the nations as their covenant law code, and Gentiles are not placed under Sinai as though they became Israelites. But neither do I accept the idea that Torah is a dead, dirty, failed thing to be mocked as “scrubbing the pots of the Law.” That kind of language is not merely colorful; it is careless. Torah is YHWH’s instruction given to Israel within Israel’s covenant. If we are going to say it no longer functions in a certain way, we should still speak of it with reverence, not contempt. It was given to Israel by God Himself. Mocking that is, in a sense, mocking God's plan.
Second, Jeremiah 31 is explicit. The renewed covenant is made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” It is not made with a detached Gentile church, and it is not made with the nations as nations. The question is not whether we prefer the word “new” or “renewed” in English. The question is covenant identity: with whom is YHWH making this covenant? Jeremiah answers that directly. The houses of Israel and Judah. No one else.
Third, Jesus’s role must be kept within the role Scripture gives him. He is Israel’s Messiah, the appointed Son, the Davidic heir, the mediator, and the one whom God raised, vindicated, and gave authority over the nations as their Kinsman-Redeemer. He cannot be the Messiah of the nations because a messiah is one that is appointed into a role, and Jesus is appointed by God Himself as King of Israel under God's authority as promised to David. That supports Israel’s covenant story. It confirms and advances it. The nations come under the authority of God’s appointed King over Israel, but that is not the same thing as saying the nations become Israel or that Jeremiah’s covenant suddenly becomes a Gentile church covenant. In simple terms, Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, their King, appointed by God in the line of David, and the Kinsman-Redeemer given authority over the nations under God's authority.
Fourth, your “all 613” argument misses the covenant structure of Torah itself which apparently you are remiss in understanding. Torah contains commands for priests, kings, men, women, farmers, judges, the land, the Temple, ritual purity, sacrifices, and national governance. Not every command applied to every Israelite in every circumstance even within ancient Israel. So listing commands that require a Temple, priesthood, court, land inheritance, or specific social role does not prove Torah was absurd or impossible. It proves Torah was a covenant law code for a particular people, land, priesthood, and kingdom order that God Himself set up.
Fifth, when Paul argues that Gentiles are not justified by works of law, he is not teaching contempt for Torah. He is addressing covenant boundary markers, justification, and the status of Gentiles in regards to Israel's Messiah. Paul cannot be used to make Jeremiah disappear, erase Israel and Judah from their own covenant promises, or turn YHWH’s instruction into something shameful. If Paul is read in a way that makes the prophets irrelevant, then the reading of Paul needs to be reexamined. Paul is saying that Torah, no matter how faithful one is to it, cannot bring salvation just like any works at all cannot bring salvation. It is the covenant with which Israel is to live by in the land, but it is not the source of salvation for Israel or the nations. And may I interject one more point here, Jesus did come to renew the covenant between Israel and God as their mediator and King. When a new leadership is appointed by a king, in this case, God Himself, the Great King, the suzerain, the "old" covenant is renewed or remade under the newly appointed leadership. That's what Jesus was doing. The nations are not a part of that in any way at all.
Sixth, “lawlessness” should not be flattened into either “not keeping all 613 laws” or “trying to earn salvation.” In the biblical framework, lawlessness is rebellion against God’s authority and order by any person, nation, or people. For Israel, that rebellion is often expressed as covenant unfaithfulness to Torah. For the nations, rebellion is judged according to the authority and order God gives to the nations. The categories are not identical, and forcing them into one later law-versus-grace debate oversimplifies Scripture so one misses the depth of the meaning.
Seventh, I do not accept the idea that the only choices are John’s framework or yours. That is a false frame. I do not hold that the nations are under Sinai Torah as Israel is. I also do not hold that Torah is bondage, failure, or a dirty pot to be scrubbed for anyone. It is a holy law given to a holy people for a particular purpose by God Himself. My framework is this: Torah is Israel’s covenant instruction; Jeremiah’s renewed covenant is with Israel and Judah; Jesus is Israel’s appointed Messiah through whom God ratifies Israel’s covenant renewal and extends royal authority over the nations in the role of Kinsman-Redeemer; the nations receive blessing through Abraham’s promise and allegiance to God’s appointed king, but they do not become parties to Jeremiah 31 in the same way Israel and Judah are.
Finally, I would be careful with the sarcasm. You may disagree with John, and so do I on several matters, but mocking Torah observance as “scrubbing the pots of the Law” is not a serious argument. It is rhetoric. Torah is not our enemy. Misapplied Torah, misplaced covenant identity, and works-righteousness are problems. But YHWH’s instruction should not be treated with contempt. And I cannot imagine God is pleased by anyone who takes a holy law He made in covenant with a nation He chose and chooses to mock it.
I will gladly discuss each and every point with you. I stand on a firm foundation. But I will not accept the framing that honoring Scripture’s covenant distinctions is “playing Pharisee,” nor will I accept the idea that later church categories get to override Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deuteronomy, Matthew, Paul, or the covenant world in which they wrote. And I definitely call you out on that and your derision towards Torah.
You said not all 613 commands applied to every Israelite.
Fine.
Then answer the question plainly:
Which ones are binding now?
Animal sacrifices?
Stoning adulterers?
Levitical purity?
Fringes?
Temple attendance?
Dietary laws?
Land sabbaths?
Priestly regulations?
You people always retreat into abstractions because specifics expose the contradiction.
Acts 15 settled the matter for Gentiles.
Galatians settled the matter doctrinally.
Hebrews settled the matter covenantally.
And the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 settled it historically.
God Himself ended the sacrificial system permanently.
Yet Torah defenders keep trying to hold together a covenant order that no longer even possesses:
— a Temple
— a priesthood
— a sacrifice
— an altar
— an ark
— a throne
— or a land inheritance operating under Mosaic law
And somehow I’m the one ignoring reality?
You said lawlessness is rebellion against God’s order.
Correct again.
And according to the New Testament, the man who rejects the finished work of Christ to return to the Law is rebelling against God’s present revelation.
Galatians 5:
“Ye are fallen from grace.”
Not because the Law was evil.
Because the Law was fulfilled.
There’s the difference you keep missing.
The Law was a schoolmaster.
Not a permanent husband.
The shadows were holy.
But they were still shadows.
And when the Body showed up, God expected people to stop hugging silhouettes.
Now as for “scrubbing pots of the Law”:
If a man spends his life obsessing over dietary codes, ritual distinctions, feast days, and external observances while rejecting the liberty found in Christ, then yes, spiritually speaking, he’s polishing kitchenware while ignoring resurrection.
That isn’t contempt for God’s Law.
That’s contempt for dead religion pretending to be spirituality.
The Pharisees tithed mint and cumin while plotting to kill God manifest in the flesh standing three feet away from them.
External precision without spiritual regeneration is exactly what Jesus condemned.
And finally:
You accuse me of using “later church categories.”
No ma’am.
I’m using the King James Bible.
And when I read Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews together, I do not see Moses enthroned over the Church.
I see Jesus Christ.
Crucified.
Risen.
Glorified.
Complete.
Not assisting Sinai.
Replacing it.
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
That verse alone detonates half your framework.
You’re trying to preserve distinctions God dissolved in Christ spiritually while simultaneously denying the plain force of the apostolic revelation.
1. You ask which commands are binding now? Sacrifices? Stoning? Purity? Fringes? Temple? Diet? Land sabbaths? Priestly regulations? I say again, Torah is not binding on the nations as their covenant law code. Torah was given to Israel as Israel’s covenant instruction under YHWH’s kingship. Gentiles are not under Sinai Torah, nor are they an extension of Israel’s Torah obligations. So none apply now or ever did for the nations, and some are not practiced today by Israel because they are not in the land. The better question is what universal moral order applies to all nations, and how is that moral order also witnessed within Torah because Israel is also a nation under God? Refer to the Ten Commandments please. Those will tell you all of the universal laws that Torah began with then expanded into the covenantal laws for Israel. That distinction matters.
2. Acts 15, Galatians, Hebrews, and AD 70
You say in simple terms that Acts 15 settled it for Gentiles. Galatians settled it doctrinally. Hebrews settled it covenantally. AD 70 settled it historically.
I agree that Acts 15 does show Gentiles were not required to come under Torah as Jews. Acts 15 does not make Torah dirty or obsolete as Israel’s covenant instruction. It shows that Gentiles were not required to become Jews or take on Israel’s covenant law code.
Hebrews addresses the priestly/sacrificial system and Jesus’s superior mediating role. But Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31, which explicitly names Israel and Judah. Hebrews cannot be used to erase the covenant parties in the very passage it cites.
For AD 70 the destruction of the Temple ended the functioning Temple system historically, but historical destruction is not the same as saying God’s instruction became contemptible or that Israel’s covenant identity vanished. Torah contains laws for Israel as a people, ones for in the land and outside the land, and others that are separate from the Temple. The destruction of a building does not destroy the whole of Torah.
3. “No Temple, priesthood, sacrifice, altar…”
You list no Temple, no priesthood, no sacrifice, no altar, no ark, no throne, no land inheritance operating under Mosaic law. This is a strong point against people claiming Torah can be fully practiced now and I agree, but I am not claiming that. Torah cannot function fully without land, Temple, priesthood, courts, and national covenant order. That proves Torah was a covenant law code for Israel’s national life, not a universal law code imposed on all nations, and to be abolished. And again, not all of Torah is for those particular points so not all of it cannot be practiced.
4. “The man who returns to the Law rejects Christ”
You say in simple terms that the man who rejects the finished work of Christ to return to the Law is rebelling against God’s present revelation. This is only true if someone is seeking justification, righteousness, or covenant inclusion by Torah observance apart from God’s appointed Messiah. One can follow the laws of Torah that are applicable outside the land and without a temple, believe Jesus is the Messiah, and choose loyalty and allegiance to God and His Son. There is nothing in there that rejects the roles Jesus fulfilled and still fulfills. I do not argue that. The nations come under the authority of Yeshua because God appointed him and gave him authority. Gentiles are not justified by Torah observance, nor required to become Jews. But that does not mean Torah’s only purpose was to condemn and disappear.
5. “The Law was a schoolmaster, not a permanent husband”
You sight Galatians imagery. Paul’s schoolmaster/tutor language in Galatians addresses the role of Torah in relation to Messiah and Gentile inclusion. It does not mean Torah was worthless, dirty, or merely a failed religious system. Nor does it mean Israel and the nations cease to be distinct covenant categories. This is more responding to John’s marriage metaphor, and I do not hold John’s literal marriage framework either. I do not treat Torah as a husband. I treat Torah as Israel’s covenant instruction under YHWH’s kingship.
6. “Shadows were holy, but still shadows”
You says, When the Body showed up, God expected people to stop hugging silhouettes.
That is clever language, but it oversimplifies. Yes, some things in Torah are typological and point forward. But “shadow” does not mean worthless. It also does not mean the prior revelation becomes false or unholy. Fulfillment does not mean contempt. A shadow can point forward without becoming shameful once the fullness arrives. Also, not everything in Torah is a “shadow” in the same way. Commands against murder, oppression, theft, false witness, sexual immorality, idolatry, and bloodshed are not merely ceremonial shadows. They witness to God’s moral universal order. Are you saying those do not apply universally because Torah is abolished and that law gone?
7. “Scrubbing pots of the Law”
You double-down on if a man obsesses over dietary codes, ritual distinctions, feast days, and external observances while rejecting liberty in Christ, then yes, he is polishing kitchenware while ignoring resurrection. This is aimed at dead ritualism. I can agree dead ritualism is a problem. But using contemptuous wording toward categories God gave Israel is offensive. External observance without covenant loyalty is condemned by the prophets and Yeshua. I agree. But that is not permission to mock Torah itself or collapse all Torah observance into dead religion.
8. Pharisees and external precision
You say the Pharisees tithed mint and cumin while plotting to kill God manifest in the flesh.
Jesus criticized leaders for neglecting weightier matters: justice, mercy, faithfulness. But He did not mock Torah as unholy. In Matthew 23:23, He says they should have done the weightier matters without neglecting the others. That’s a universal kindness, not particularly Torah. Jesus condemned hypocrisy, not Torah. He rebuked external precision that lacked justice, mercy, and faithfulness. And I do not believe Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. There is nothing in Scripture that supports that. It is later modern reinterpretation and misunderstanding of kingdom roles and language.
9. “I’m using the King James Bible”
The King James Bible is itself a seventeenth-century English translation produced within later church categories. Using the KJV is reading a seventeenth-century English translation. And while I do not mock it nor criticize it, I will say reading it is like reading Shakespeare. We understand the English words, but we do not understand what they meant at the time of the writing. For example, “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” does not mean “Where are you located, Romeo?” Wherefore meant “why”, not location during that time period. She was asking why he had to be from a Montague family. It continued to mean that up into the seventeenth century in many writings. So my question would be, does “wherefore” continue to mean “why” in the KJV? And how many other English words, understood in England, not America, are not the same meaning as today. We need to remember that England’s culture and language does not match ours or what it is today. Careful study is therefore recommended of historical context. And my concern is not whether one uses the KJV. My concern is whether the reader imports post-biblical theological categories into Israel’s covenant texts.
10. “Christ is the end of the law”
You say Romans 10:4 detonates half my framework. It does not. Romans 10:4 says Christ is the telos of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Telos can mean end, goal, culmination, aim. Even if one translates it “end,” the issue in Romans 10 is righteousness/justification, not whether Torah was ever holy instruction for Israel or whether Jeremiah’s covenant parties vanish. And again, law never justifies or saves anyway so… salvation was not dependent on it then or now.
11. “God dissolved distinctions in Christ”
You says that I am trying to preserve distinctions God dissolved in Christ spiritually. Nope, I say shared standing in Messiah does not erase all covenant distinctions. Paul can say “neither Jew nor Greek” in relation to status and inheritance in Messiah while still speaking of Israel, Gentiles, natural branches, wild branches, promises, covenants, fathers, and nations. Equality before God’s appointed Messiah is not the same thing as erasing Israel and the nations as scriptural categories.
12. “Torah’s purpose: reveal sin, condemn man, point to Christ, end at Calvary”
Your summary of Torah is too narrow.
Torah does reveal sin, expose rebellion, include sacrificial/atonement systems that point beyond themselves, and does lead toward Messiah. It also teaches wisdom, orders Israel’s national life, reveals YHWH’s justice, protects the vulnerable, forms Israel as a holy people, distinguishes Israel from the nations, contains universal moral order, and witnesses to God’s kingship.
You are arguing against a Torah-for-Gentiles framework I do not hold. I do not believe the nations are under Sinai Torah. Acts 15 supports that. But your conclusion goes too far. Torah’s non-application to Gentiles as covenant law does not make Torah dead religion, bondage, or kitchenware. It remains YHWH’s holy instruction to Israel and a witness to His justice, wisdom, and universal moral order.
The fact that Torah requires land, priesthood, Temple, courts, and national order proves my point: Torah was given to Israel as a covenant nation. The nations are accountable to God’s universal moral order and to His appointed Messiah, not to Sinai as Israel’s covenant code.
Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and Acts must be read without erasing Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deuteronomy, or the covenant identities named in the text. Jesus is not “assisting Sinai,” nor is He detached from Israel’s story. He is the one God appointed to fulfill Israel’s promises and extend God’s kingdom authority over the nations.
Are you saved? When you die, do you know your final destination? Salvation is easy, God made it so we pitiful could lay hold of it:
1. Romans 3:23 – All have sinned
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
2. Romans 6:23 – The consequence of sin
“For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
3. Romans 5:8 – God’s love and Christ’s sacrifice
“But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
4. Romans 10:9-10 – Confession and belief bring salvation
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
5. Romans 10:13 – Salvation is for all who call upon the Lord
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Have you asked Jesus to save you?
Prayed some like this at one time: "Jesus, my Lord and my God, save me!"
Gregory, I understand why you are asking, and I will answer plainly.
Yes, I belong to God. I have pledged my allegiance, trust, and loyalty to God, the Great King and Creator, and to Jesus, His Son, whom God raised, vindicated, appointed, and gave authority over me as one from the nations.
I would define salvation within that framework: God saves through His appointed Son. God is the source of salvation. Jesus is the one through whom God brings that salvation, because God gave Him that role and authority as the Kinsman-Redeemer.
Even the passages you listed point in that direction. Romans 6:23 says eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus the Messiah our Lord. Romans 5:8 says God demonstrates His love through Messiah’s death. Romans 10:9 says to confess Jesus as Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead. So yes, I confess Jesus as Lord in authority given to Him by God as one from the nations, and I believe God raised Him from the dead.
Where I differ is that I do not use the phrase “Jesus, my Lord and my God, save me,” because in my framework God alone is the Great King and Creator. I honor Jesus as God’s Son, Messiah, mediator, king, and the one given authority by God. I do not collapse Him into God Himself. I give God the greater honor and Jesus the honor that God commands me to give Him as His Son.
So no, I do not trust Torah, works, merit, denomination, or myself. I trust God, and I trust the one God appointed. My allegiance is to God and to His Son. I believe God saves through Jesus, and I seek to remain faithful to both.
Now let’s address your rejection of Christ’s deity.
You said:
“There is nothing in Scripture supporting God manifest in the flesh.”
Ma’am, now we’ve arrived at the real center of this discussion.
Because your framework consistently lowers Christ into a delegated agent role instead of recognizing the full revelation given in the New Testament.
John 1:
“The Word was God.”
John 8:
“Before Abraham was, I am.”
Thomas:
“My Lord and my God.”
Colossians 2:
“In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
First Timothy 3:16:
“God was manifest in the flesh.”
Hebrews 1 says the Son is addressed:
“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.”
And Revelation presents all heaven worshipping the Lamb alongside the Father.
Now you can explain those away through agency theories and covenantal role language, but the apostles preached far more than merely an exalted human king.
They preached incarnation.
And honestly, that explains much of the tension in your system.
Because once Christ is reduced primarily to appointed covenant representative rather than divine Son, the entire New Testament begins collapsing backward into administrative covenant categories instead of exploding outward into cosmic fulfillment.
That is exactly what your framework keeps doing.
You accuse me of importing later theology.
But the highest Christology in the New Testament appears in the earliest Christian writings themselves.
The apostles did not gradually evolve Jesus upward into deity centuries later.
They preached Him as Lord from the beginning.
Finally:
You keep saying:
“I am not erasing Christ from Israel’s story.”
Good.
But the apostles also refused to trap Him inside it.
He is the fulfillment of Israel’s story precisely because He is greater than Israel itself.
Greater than Moses.
Greater than the Temple.
Greater than David.
Greater than the priesthood.
Greater than Sinai.
That is the entire argument of Hebrews.
And once the Greater arrives, the lesser — however holy — cannot continue functioning the same way.
Gregory, this is probably the real center of where our frameworks differ, so I will answer your points directly and as clearly as I can.
You said I reject Christ’s deity. That is correct if by “deity” you mean Jesus is God Himself, equal to the Father, the Almighty, the Creator, or the Alpha and Omega. But I do not reject Jesus’s divinely given role, authority, exaltation, holiness, sonship, kingship, or importance. I believe Jesus is God’s Son, Israel’s Messiah, the promised Son of David, the faithful Israelite, the mediator, the kinsman-redeemer, the prophet like Moses, the firstborn from the dead, and the one to whom God gives authority over Israel and the nations. That does not diminish Jesus. It honors Him according to the roles God Himself gives him.
Now to your passages.
John 1 “The Word was God.”
During John's time, the Greek word, Logos, meant declaration, plan, intent, speech, thought, etc. It never meant person or divine person during his time. In that context, John is saying God’s word, speech, reason, plan, declaration, or self-expression. John begins “in the beginning,” deliberately reaching back to Genesis. God speaks, God declares, and what God declares comes to be.
So I understand John 1 as saying God’s own word/declaration/plan was with Him from the beginning and was fully expressive of Him. That word became flesh in Jesus. In other words, Jesus is the embodiment and manifestation of God’s declared purpose, not God Himself as a second person.
A simple analogy would be a royal decree or blueprint. The plan belongs to the king, comes from the king, expresses the king’s will, and is eventually embodied in what is built. The building is the manifestation of the plan, but it is not the king himself.
John 8 “Before Abraham was, I am.”
This is in light of purpose, promise, and identity within God’s plan. Jesus is not claiming to be older than Abraham in a biological sense. He is confronting leaders who are boasting in being in the descent of Abraham while failing to recognize the one God appointed as the fulfillment of the promise. When one boasted their genealogy back then, it gave them status in the community. The more honored the genealogy, the higher the status.
Before Abraham, the promise already existed in God’s declared plan. The seed promise goes back to Genesis 3:15. Jesus’s role did not begin with Abraham. It was in God’s purpose from the beginning. So when Jesus speaks this way, He is locating Himself in God’s plan before Abraham’s covenant line, not declaring Himself to be the Almighty God.
In other words, He's saying, "Hey, go ahead and boast your ancestral line. I was in God's plan and purpose long before Abraham even existed. Promised in Genesis 3:15."
Thomas “My Lord and my God.”
Thomas’s statement is in the context of agency, representation, and revelation. Jesus is the image of God, the one through whom God is made known. To see Jesus is to see the Father’s character, authority, and work revealed through the Son He sent.
So yes, Thomas recognizes Jesus as Lord, and in seeing the risen Jesus he also recognizes the God who sent, raised, vindicated, and revealed Himself through Him. But I do not take that as overturning Jesus’s own repeated distinction between himself and “my God” and “your God.”
In that culture, the one appointed and sent was seen as if they were the king themself. They were to be addressed and treated as if they were the king themself because he sent them in all his authority to represent the king. Genesis states we are made in the image of God. Are we God?
Colossians 2 “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
This is God’s fullness dwelling in Jesus by God’s will, presence, authority, and appointment. The fullness of God is embodied in Him because God chose to make Himself known through His Son. That does not require Jesus to be God Himself. Scripture can speak of God’s presence, Spirit, wisdom, authority, and fullness dwelling in the one He appoints without collapsing that appointed one into God.
Jesus is the full and faithful embodiment of God’s purpose, presence, and authorized rule. That is exalted language, but it is still consistent with Jesus being the Son sent and empowered by the Father.
1 Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh.”
This wording is actually textually debated, with some manuscripts reading “He who was manifested in the flesh” rather than “God was manifest in the flesh.” But even if someone uses the KJV wording, I would still read “manifest” carefully. God was made known, revealed, and displayed in and through Jesus. That is not the same thing as saying Jesus is God Himself.
God’s character, mercy, authority, and saving purpose were manifested in the flesh through His appointed Son. That fits the agency framework throughout Scripture: the sent one reveals the sender.
Hebrews 1 “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.”
Hebrews 1 is quoting royal enthronement language from Psalm 45. In the biblical and ANE world, kings could be addressed with exalted divine language because they sat as God’s appointed ruler, representing God’s authority. But the very next line says, “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you.” That matters. The one addressed in royal language still has a God above Him who anoints and appoints Him. He is Jesus's God clearly stated by God Himself.
So Hebrews 1 does not collapse Jesus into God Himself. It exalts Yeshua as God’s royal Son, enthroned and anointed by God above his companions.
Revelation - heaven worships/praises the Lamb alongside the Father.
Yes, the Lamb is honored alongside the One seated on the throne. I agree. But the imagery still distinguishes the Lamb from the One seated on the throne. The Lamb is worthy because He was slain and because God has exalted Him. He receives honor because God commands the Son to be honored and because He faithfully fulfills the role given to Him.
Being praised alongside God does not mean he is the same being as God. It means God has placed His Lamb, His Son, His appointed king, in the highest position under Himself.
Now, you say the apostles preached incarnation. I disagree. I believe the apostles preached that God sent His Son, raised Him from the dead, exalted Him, made him Lord and Messiah, and gave Him authority. That is the language repeated again and again.
You also say my framework creates tension. I do not see that tension. My framework follows the kingdom and covenant language Scripture itself uses: God sends, God appoints, God raises, God exalts, God gives authority, Jesus obeys, Jesus receives, Jesus mediates, Jesus reigns, and all of this is to the glory of God the Father as Jesus clearly states more than once. He always points to the Father and the glory of the Father, not to Himself.
If you see tension there, I would ask you to identify exactly where the tension is.
You continue to say I reduce Jesus to an appointed covenant representative. I do not. I list many roles Scripture gives him: Son, Messiah, King, mediator, kinsman-redeemer, faithful Israelite, Son of David, prophet like Moses, firstborn from the dead, judge, and ruler over the nations by God’s authority.
I do believe Jesus is divine in the sense that He is born by God’s action, filled with God’s Spirit, appointed by God, exalted by God, and uniquely represents God. But divine does not automatically mean deity. Only God is God. Jesus is divine as God’s Son.
To me, your framework risks doing what you accuse me of doing. You say I reduce Jesus by keeping Him under God’s authority. By stating His roles and how He fulfills them. But I would say identifying Jesus simply as “God” can actually flatten the very roles Scripture gives Him. If Jesus is simply God Himself, then his obedience, sonship, mediation, appointment, exaltation, and receiving of authority become harder to read plainly, and, quite frankly, should not be all that important to be mentioned in Scripture. Why not God came in the flesh and did this spoken plainly?
I honor both God and Jesus in the order Scripture presents: God as the Great King and Creator, and Jesus as His faithful Son whom He appoints over Israel and the nations.
You mentioned “the highest Christology” in the earliest writings. I would simply say this: high Christology is not the same thing as later Trinitarian deity claims. The earliest writings can exalt Jesus tremendously as Lord, Messiah, Son, image, mediator, and ruler without making Him God Himself. The apostles preached him as Lord from the beginning, yes. I agree. But “Lord” does not automatically mean “YHWH Himself.” Kings, masters, and appointed rulers can be called lord. Jesus is Lord because God made him Lord and Messiah.
Finally, I agree that Jesus is greater than Moses, greater than the Temple, greater than David, greater than the priesthood, and greater than Sinai. Hebrews absolutely presents Him as greater. The question is what kind of “greater” Hebrews means. I understand it as greater in role, authority, mediation, inheritance, and appointment because God, His Father, has exalted Him above all others.
And yes, I agree that many things were preparatory. But that preparation goes all the way back to Genesis 3:15. This is God’s plan from the beginning: humanity exiled from the household, God promising a seed, then moving through covenant, Israel, David, exile, restoration, and finally Jesus.
Jesus is essential to God’s plan. Without Him, the restoration plan does not reach its appointed goal. But it is still God’s plan. God is the Great King and Creator. God makes the promises. God sends the Son, raises Him, and gives Him authority. God restores His creation through Him in the roles that God appointed Him and exalted Him to. I will not exalt Jesus in a way that diminishes God, the Father, the One whom Jesus Himself calls “my God.”
I have a question. What requires Jesus to be God? What would happen or not happen if Jesus was God's Son, apart from God?
You keep insisting you are preserving distinctions.
What you are actually doing is reconstructing a theological middle-ground the apostles never camped in.
You say:
“Torah is not binding on the nations.”
Fine.
The apostles agreed.
Then you spend the next several thousand words trying to preserve Torah as an ongoing covenant identity structure after the arrival of the very fulfillment it anticipated.
That is where the problem starts.
Because the New Testament never treats Torah as merely “Israel’s continuing national constitution awaiting proper context restoration.”
It treats it as fulfilled, surpassed, and rendered inoperative as covenant authority through Jesus Christ.
Not evil.
Not sinful.
Not dirty.
Completed.
That is the distinction you keep resisting.
You keep repeating:
“It remains holy instruction.”
Of course it was holy instruction.
Nobody denied that except the heretics.
But something can be holy and temporary.
The Tabernacle was holy.
The Levitical priesthood was holy.
Animal sacrifices were holy.
Circumcision was holy.
And every one of them was superseded in Christ.
Your argument keeps assuming:
“If something was holy, it must remain covenantally active.”
The New Testament never argues that way.
Hebrews explicitly argues the opposite.
Now let’s address your “universal moral order” distinction.
You say the Ten Commandments represent universal morality while the expanded Torah code contains Israel-specific covenant legislation.
All right.
Then notice what you just admitted:
parts of Torah were temporary, covenant-bound, and nationally restricted.
Exactly.
That is already enough to dismantle the rhetoric about “eternal Torah obligation” being advanced by many covenantal Torah defenders.
Now you personally may not hold that position fully, but your framework keeps orbiting around preserving Torah-status after fulfillment instead of recognizing the transition the apostles preached.
And notice carefully:
the moral law continuing does not require the Sinai covenant continuing.
Murder was wrong before Moses.
Idolatry was wrong before Moses.
Adultery was wrong before Moses.
Why?
Because morality originates in God’s character — not merely in Sinai legislation.
That’s why Christians can affirm moral truth while recognizing the Mosaic covenant itself has passed.
Ma’am, you’ve written a long letter defending a covenant you cannot keep, to uphold a law you do not obey, while rebuking a man for speaking plainly about what your own apostles said was temporary.
Now let’s quit dancing around the issue.
You say I mock Torah.
No ma’am.
I mock sinners who brag about reverencing Torah while breaking it daily.
There’s a difference.
David mocked Goliath.
Elijah mocked Baal.
Isaiah mocked idolaters.
Paul mocked circumcisionists.
And the Lord Jesus Christ called religious men “whited sepulchres,” “blind guides,” and “children of hell.”
So don’t lecture me about tone while defending a system God Himself nailed to the cross according to Colossians 2.
You said Torah is holy.
Of course it is.
Romans 7:12 already settled that:
“The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”
But the issue isn’t whether the Law was holy.
The issue is whether YOU are.
And according to Scripture, you’re not.
Neither am I.
That’s why Jesus Christ came.
You keep trying to preserve Sinai after Calvary like the Cross was merely a covenant-management update instead of the termination of the Old Covenant system.
Hebrews didn’t say “renewed administration.”
It said:
“A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
That’s Hebrews 8.
Not Scofield.
Not Darby.
Not “later church categories.”
The Holy Ghost said it.
You keep repeating:
“The covenant is with Israel and Judah.”
Correct.
And every saved Gentile in the Church is spiritually placed into Christ, where:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek.”
That’s Paul.
The same Paul you keep trying to muzzle with Jeremiah.
You act like Jeremiah cancels Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews.
It doesn’t.
The New Testament interprets the Old Testament.
Not the other way around.
You said Jesus cannot be “Messiah of the nations.”
Then explain why Revelation calls Him:
“KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
Explain why Isaiah said:
“The Gentiles shall trust in his name.”
Explain why Simeon called Him:
“A light to lighten the Gentiles.”
Explain why the Great Commission sends the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE.
You’re reducing Jesus Christ to a tribal monarch of ethnic Israel while the New Testament reveals Him as God manifest in the flesh ruling heaven, earth, Jews, Gentiles, angels, devils, death, hell, and eternity itself.
That doctrine shrinks Christ instead of exalting Him.
You say, “You’ve written a long letter defending a covenant you cannot keep, to uphold a law you do not obey…” I did not say it was a covenant I can or cannot keep. I am not Israel, it is not my covenant to keep or not keep. I also said that Torah is Israel’s covenant law, given to Israel as YHWH’s chosen nation. The nations are not under Torah as their covenant code. The nations are accountable to God’s universal moral order, which Torah also contains because God is King over all.
Now where do the apostles say Torah is temporary? Specifically, that Torah is temporary.
You say that I said you mock Torah, and you respond with “I mock sinners who brag about reverencing Torah while breaking it daily.” It is God’s role to judge who does or doesn’t keep Torah or the universal law, not yours to mock and judge as Scripture clearly points out. Using language such as “scrubbing the pots of the Law,” “dead man named Moses,” “kitchen rules,” “desert with Moses”, does treat Torah contemptuously, not merely hypocritical Torah-keepers as you say you mock. Torah may not be the covenant code for Gentiles, but it remains holy instruction given by God to His holy nation. It should not be spoken of with contempt in any context, nor should Moses or anyone who chooses to follow Torah themselves. No one is perfect, and whether they choose to follow the universal law or Torah, we are not to mock any of their failures. I am not rebuking plain speech. I am objecting to contemptuous language toward what Scripture calls holy, just, and good.
You cite David, Elijah, Isaiah, Paul, and Jesus mocking opponents. That is a rhetoric shield. So, you say that in your view, biblical figures mocked people, therefore your sarcasm is justified? Did they mock or did they rebuke? There is a difference. David rebuked because God was mocked by Goliath. Elijah and Isaiah did mock, but against things that mocked God Himself. Jesus rebuked because leaders were violating covenant justice in their corrupt leadership. He was scolding them. None of them mocked anything related to God or Israel.
You say, “a system God Himself nailed to the cross according to Colossians 2.” Colossians 2:14 says the “record of debt” or “handwriting against us” was removed/nailing to the cross. The debt/condemnation was of humanity’s failures was removed, not God’s holy instruction to Israel in their covenantal relationship.
You say, “The issue isn’t whether the Law was holy. The issue is whether YOU are.”
My argument is not that I am made righteous by Torah observance and is mute because Torah is not for the nations of which I am. My argument is that covenant categories matter. If someone chooses to follow Torah themselves, again, following Torah does not make one holy or holier, it is a covenantal constitution with Israel living under covenant with God. It’s laws. Again, repeat, laws. Like do not do this or that. Just like nations have laws. It has nothing to do with degrees of holiness if one follows it, and following it does not provide salvation because they are laws. Salvation never depended on keeping Torah, ever, and not now for anyone who follows it. That would be like saying if I followed and obeyed every law of the country I live in, then I will be blessed and saved from something. Very big distinction between living by law, universal or Torah, and choosing allegiance and loyalty to God and Yeshua. The law, universal or Torah, is how to live under that allegiance and loyalty.
You say, “like the Cross was merely a covenant-management update instead of the termination of the Old Covenant system.” I am not saying Calvary is minor. I am saying Jesus’s death and resurrection must be understood inside Israel’s covenant story, not as a cancellation of that story. He is the Messiah of Israel, their King, and the Kinsman-Redeemer promised in Genesis 3:15 given authority over all the nations. Two roles addressing two purposes on the cross, one for Israel in promise to David, and one for the restoration of humanity to God. Jesus does not terminate YHWH’s promises to Israel. He ratifies the promised covenant renewal, is raised and vindicated by God, appointed as Israel’s Messiah, and is given authority over the nations as the Kinsman-Redeemer because of His obedience and loyalty to His Father. That is clear in Scripture.
Your point is Hebrews says new covenant; the first is old, decaying, ready to vanish, therefore it is not renewed administration. Let me ask you this… were Gentiles ever under the “old” law? And if not, then why would they be under a “new” covenant if they weren’t under an “old” one? Because this is a renewed covenant under a new administration under God Himself over Israel, and the “old” covenant is renewed or remade for that because only Israel was under the “old” covenant. Jeremiah clearly states who the renewed covenant is with, the houses of Israel and Judah. If you use that to show new covenant, then you are saying the Gentiles were under the old covenant and therefore are absorbed into Israel and placed under the renewed covenant because the old one is gone. Or are you saying that Jeremiah was not truthful? I am not muzzling one or the other. I am not using Jeremiah to cancel Paul. I am refusing to use Paul to cancel Jeremiah. Paul must be read as an apostle of Israel’s Messiah, not as someone authorized to rewrite the prophets into a detached Gentile church covenant. Paul stated more than once who he was, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Israelite, and a Pharisee of the highest learning. He did not leave his affiliations behind to become separate into something else. He was true to His Messiah, the King of Israel, as an Israelite, and true to Jesus, who is also the Kinsman-Redeemer, as a human who needed a path of restoration to God.
You state, “There is neither Jew nor Greek,” using Galatians 3:28 to erase covenant distinctions. But that passage is saying that there is equal standing in the Messiah and neither erases the historical covenant identities of Israel and the nations because the Messiah is both Israel’s King and given authority over the nations as the Kinsman-Redeemer. Paul can say there is neither Jew nor Greek regarding status in Messiah, while still speaking of Israel, Gentiles, promises, covenants, fathers, natural branches, wild branches, and nations.
You say, “The New Testament interprets the Old Testament. Not the other way around.” The “New Testament” authors did not reinterpret their prophets backwards. Their Bible was what we call the Old Testament. They argued from it because that was their foundation. They did not need to reinterpret what was already written. If the New Testament is read in a way that makes Jeremiah’s named covenant parties irrelevant, then the interpretation has departed from the text it claims to fulfill. Are you using modern understanding to reinterpret the New Testament? If so, please explain how today we understand adoption. Because in New Testament culture, it was primarily used to understand a legal placement of a son as an heir with inheritance and authority. Big difference.
I never said Jesus cannot be Messiah of the nations. I do not deny Jesus’s authority over the nations. I deny that “Messiah” is a generic office detached from Israel. Study the term messiah. Even the priest were called messiah, the anointed priests. The kings of Israel were called God’s anointed, messiah. The prophets were considered anointed ones, messiah. Messiah means anointed one for a role. Messiah is Israel’s anointed king. He is Israel’s Messiah, appointed by God, shown loyalty and obedience to His Father, and given authority over the nations as their Kinsman-Redeemer. So the nations are included under his rule, but that does not make him a “Messiah of the nations” in the same covenantal sense. The Messiah comes from Israel, to Israel, and then rules the nations by God’s appointment.
God gives Israel’s Messiah authority over the nations. Yes, the nations trust in Him. Yes, He is light to the Gentiles. Yes, the commission goes to all nations. None of that turns the nations into Israel or makes Jeremiah 31 a Gentile covenant.
You accuse me of “You’re reducing Jesus to a tribal monarch”. No, I am locating him in the role Scripture gives him. Besides, Israel is a nation with tribes. I point out that God raised Him, vindicated Him, appointed Him as Davidic heir, gave Him authority over the nations, and seated Him at His right hand. That is not shrinking Him. That is honoring the roles God gave Him that are clearly stated in Scripture. It is not diminishing Him to say He is King of Israel and given authority over the nations as God appointed Him. That is the highest honor that God can give His Son. Authority over God’s creation on earth. You don’t think so?
Gregory, first, thank you for keeping your responses more polite in tone. I do appreciate that. However, I need to say this clearly before continuing: please stop telling me I am saying things I have not said.
I have met your points directly and answered your questions. I am still waiting for you to answer several of mine. But instead of addressing what I actually said, you continue to restate my position as though I am reducing Jesus to a “tribal covenant administrator,” denying his authority over the nations, or claiming Gentiles are merely tourists near Israel’s kingdom. I have not said those things so stop.
I will clarify once more, Jesus is not “merely” anything. He is Israel’s Messiah, the promised Davidic heir, the appointed Son, the mediator, the one God raised and vindicated, the one to whom God gave authority over the nations, and the one through whom the nations receive blessing and accountability. That is not a reduction of Jesus. That is honoring the roles Scripture gives him which you seem to ignore.
You continue to respond as though I defend Gentile obligation to Sinai Torah. I do not. I have said repeatedly that Torah was given to Israel as Israel’s covenant law, and that the nations are not under Torah in the same covenantal way. The nations are accountable to God’s universal moral order and to the authority God gives His appointed Messiah. So before we continue, please engage my actual position, not a version of it that is easier to refute for you.
I will gladly continue point by point. But if you continue to assert that I am saying things I have not said, then I will not keep engaging. A real discussion requires answering the argument actually being made.
Now, here are the questions I am still waiting for you to answer:
1. If Jeremiah 31 names the renewed covenant parties as the house of Israel and the house of Judah, where do the apostles explicitly redefine those covenant parties as “the Gentile church”?
2. If Gentiles were never under Sinai Torah as covenant law, in what sense are Gentiles released from Sinai Torah as though it had been their covenant jurisdiction? And what and whose covenant structures does the NT preserve?
3. When Paul says Gentiles are “fellow heirs,” fellow heirs of what exactly, and where does Paul say this erases Israel’s covenant identity rather than bringing Gentiles into blessing through Messiah? And what are they grafted into?
4. When you say Yeshua “fulfilled” the Law, do you mean he obeyed it fully, brought its prophetic patterns to their intended goal, or ended it entirely? Those are not the same claim.
5. If God promised David an heir and kingdom, and the prophets repeatedly speak of Israel’s restoration, where does Scripture say those promises are dissolved rather than fulfilled through God’s appointed Messiah?
And many others in other responses to yours that you have ignored.
I am not refusing Paul. I am refusing to use Paul to erase Jeremiah, Ezekiel, David, Israel, Judah, the nations, or the covenant categories Scripture itself gives us.
You’ve done what most covenantal arguers eventually do:
you’ve built an elaborate framework of distinctions, administrations, identities, categories, national roles, and covenant placements, and somehow managed to miss the blazing center of the New Testament revelation sitting right in front of you.
Jesus Christ did not come merely to administrate Israel better.
He came to fulfill the Law, satisfy its demands, end its condemning authority, and establish something greater than Sinai.
Now before you accuse me again of “mocking Torah,” let’s settle something plainly.
I have already said the Law was holy.
Paul said it first.
The issue is not whether the Law came from God.
The issue is what God intended the Law to accomplish.
And according to the New Testament, its purpose was never permanence.
You asked:
“Where do the apostles specifically say Torah is temporary?”
All right.
Galatians 3:
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ… but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
A schoolmaster is temporary by definition.
Hebrews 7:
“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”
Not “clarification.”
Not “renewed administration.”
A change.
Hebrews 8:
“In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.”
Old means obsolete in covenantal function.
Hebrews 10:
The sacrifices are called:
“a shadow of good things to come.”
Shadows are temporary until the substance arrives.
Romans 10:4:
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.”
Not continuation.
End.
Second Corinthians 3 calls the Mosaic administration:
“that which is done away.”
Now you can construct covenantal distinctions around those verses all day long, but you cannot honestly pretend the apostolic witness presents Sinai as an ongoing covenant structure awaiting administrative renewal.
The apostles present Christ as fulfillment, culmination, and transition point.
Now concerning your statement:
“It is God’s role to judge, not yours to mock.”
Ma’am, Bible preaching has always included exposing hypocrisy with sharp language.
John the Baptist called religious leaders snakes.
Jesus called Herod a fox.
Paul wished Judaizers would mutilate themselves in Galatians 5.
That isn’t “gentle covenant dialogue.”
The Bible is not a graduate seminar in Near Eastern treaty structure.
It is a battlefield between truth and error.
And when men take what was designed to point to Christ and elevate it into a continuing covenant identity system that competes with the sufficiency of Christ, apostles spoke sharply about it.
Now notice carefully:
you keep insisting Torah observance does not save.
Good.
That’s correct.
But then you immediately turn around and defend Torah observance as covenantally meaningful in a continuing sense after the Cross.
That is exactly the issue Hebrews spends chapters dismantling.
You keep saying:
“It was Israel’s constitution.”
Fine.
Then where is the nation operating under it?
Where is the Temple?
Where is the Levitical priesthood?
Where are the sacrifices?
Where is the Davidic throne administering Torah jurisdiction?
Gone.
And according to the New Testament, gone by divine design.
You said Colossians 2 only removed the “debt,” not the Law itself.
Then explain why the very next verses mention:
“holyday… new moon… sabbath days… which are a shadow of things to come.”
Paul explicitly ties covenant observances to shadow-language fulfilled in Christ.
That is not merely cancellation of guilt.
That is displacement of covenant forms by fulfillment.
You keep separating “Torah” from “works-righteousness” as though that resolves the issue.
It doesn’t.
Galatians was not written against pagans trying to earn salvation through good deeds.
It was written against covenantal pressure to maintain Torah identity markers after Christ.
But these “categories” are not my invention. Scripture itself is full of them: Kingdom. Covenant. Priesthood. Holy Land. Temple. Inheritance. Davidic throne. Israel. Judah. Nations. Messiah. Son of David. Mediator. Law. Torah. Exile. Restoration. I am using the categories Scripture itself gives us in order to understand what God did through Christ. That is an important correction.
2. “Jesus did not come merely to administrate Israel better” - No, He came as the promised Davidic heir, the appointed Messiah, the one God raised, vindicated, and gave authority. I never claimed Jesus came merely to administrate Israel better. I claim he came as Israel’s promised Messiah, the Son of David, the appointed heir, and the one through whom God advances His kingdom purposes. If the Davidic promises are not fulfilled in Jesus’s kingship, then what happened to God’s covenant with David?
3. “Fulfill the Law, satisfy its demands, end its condemning authority” - Satisfy what demands, under what condemning authority, and for whom? You are applying those terms as if Torah had something to do with salvation. Torah was given to Israel as covenant law. So if its condemning authority is being addressed, we must ask who was under that covenant?, who broke it?, who needed redemption from its curse? And how do Gentiles enter the blessing without becoming Israel? Torah’s covenant curse applied to Israel under Torah. The nations were guilty before God, and accountable under God’s universal moral order. The nations were never under Sinai Torah as covenant law, so they were not redeemed from Torah. They are redeemed from sin and death under God’s universal judgment and brought under the authority of His appointed Messiah.
4. “God intended the Law to accomplish…” - Torah was given for Israel to live under YHWH’s kingship as His covenant nation in His land, with His presence among them. You narrow Torah’s purpose to “point to Christ” when actually it was for a nation to live in a holy land as stewards. “Condemn man” but what man? Israel was the only one under it. End at Calvary but for whom? Israel was the only one under it. Torah also formed Israel as a holy nation, ordered the land under YHWH’s rule, established justice and restitution within the land, protected the vulnerable among Israel, regulated priesthood and sanctuary, distinguished Israel from the nations as stewards in the land, revealed YHWH’s wisdom and righteousness as a King over them in example to the nations, and preserved Israel’s covenant identity. Torah does point forward in many ways, but that is not its only purpose. It was and is Israel’s covenant constitution under YHWH as King.
5. "Temporary” proof texts
Galatians 3 - schoolmaster/tutor. A schoolmaster is temporary by definition. Yes, Paul is addressing Torah’s role in relation to Messiah and Israel, and especially Gentile inclusion if the Gentile chooses. But the question is temporary for whom, in what role, and for what purpose? The tutor role does not mean Torah was worthless or that Israel’s promises vanished. It means Torah’s function as guardian of Israel until Messiah is not the basis for Gentile covenant inclusion under it or even to be tutored by it.
Hebrews 7 - change of priesthood, change of law - Yes, Hebrews says priesthood change requires a change of law concerning priestly mediation. But that does not mean every dimension of Israel’s covenant identity disappears or that Torah becomes contemptible. Israel does not depend on a priesthood. That was for God’s dwelling place. Hebrews is heavily priesthood/offering/mediation focused. It does not say Jeremiah 31 is now detached from Israel and Judah.
Hebrews 8 - new covenant makes first old - Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31. Jeremiah defines the covenant parties as Israel and Judah. Therefore Hebrews cannot be used to erase the Israel/Judah covenant context of the passage it quotes. And again, are Gentiles under the old covenant? And if they are not, then there is no new covenant to replace the old one for the Gentiles.
Hebrews 10 - sacrifices are shadows - Yes, the offerings are shadows. But shadow language does not mean all Torah becomes dead, nor does it mean God’s appointed times and covenant signs were meaningless. It means the offering/priestly system pointed beyond itself, not that it disappears. And… God made the promise to Aaron that the priesthood would be forever on earth. Does God keep His promises and covenants? Will the priesthood look different under Jesus’s rule? Absolutely. Will it look different when God comes to rule on earth? Absolutely. But not abolished. Israel remains in covenant with God as God promised, and they will steward in the land as promised.
Romans 10:4 - Christ is end/telos of law for righteousness - Romans 10:4 is about righteousness. I am not arguing Torah provides righteousness for Gentiles or anyone else. Christ is the goal/culmination/end of Torah for righteousness, not to erase Torah’s covenant role for Israel or its witness to God’s moral order.
2 Corinthians 3 - done away - The fading glory of one administration does not give permission to redefine Jeremiah’s covenant parties. Jesus is the new administration, new leadership, under God Himself. Covenant between Israel and God is renewed under that new leadership.
6. “You cannot pretend Sinai is ongoing covenant structure” – And why not? It is not for Gentiles therefore the structure does not encompass them. Sinai/Torah is Israel’s covenant law for their nation. Jeremiah promises covenant renewal with the houses of Israel and Judah. Jesus ratifies that promised renewal under His new leadership under God. The priestly/offering mediation changes through Jesus under His rule. Gentiles are not placed under Sinai Torah so there is no reason for it not to continue for Israel. Israel’s covenant identity and restoration promises are not erased. I am not arguing that Sinai continues unchanged after Jesus. I am arguing that Jesus’s work does not erase Israel, Judah, Torah’s holiness, or the covenant promises God made because He is their King and Messiah.
7. Defense of sharp language. But those rebukes you mention targeted hypocrisy, idolatry, corruption, and false teaching, not sincere reverence for what God gave or for those who choose to follow God under Torah. Keeping their allegiance and loyalty to Him and His Son. Sharp rebuke has a place. But biblical sharpness does not justify misrepresenting another person’s position or using contemptuous language for what God gave Israel. The prophets rebuked Israel for breaking Torah, not for reverencing it.
8. “The Bible is not a graduate seminar in Near Eastern treaty structure”- This is a rhetorical jab which I hear so often in many different ways. The Bible may not be a graduate seminar, but it was written in real historical worlds, using covenant forms, royal language, temple imagery, law codes, land grants, priesthood systems, and restoration promises. But neither is it a collection of free-floating English slogans detached from the world in which God gave them. The Bible was written in history, through cultures, languages, covenants, kings, priests, and prophets. Studying that world is not avoiding Scripture; it is respecting and understanding it in the world that God gave it. And isn't there something in Scripture that says to study to show thyself approved?
9. “Continuing covenant identity system competes with Christ” - Israel’s covenant identity does not compete with Jesus; it is the story into which He was born, the roles He fulfills, and the kingdom framework by which God gives Him authority over the nations. No law set for a nation can compare to Jesus. That is like saying Jesus is the law, but He is not. He administers the law of God’s Kingdom. Jesus is intelligible as Messiah because Moses, Prophets, David, and covenant promises exist.
10. “Where is the nation, Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, throne?” – Dispersed, yes, but awaiting restoration back into the land as stewards according to the covenant between God and Israel. If we say that their absence means they are no longer, then why didn’t it mean that every time they were exiled from the land? Their absence does not prove God abolished His promises. Israel has experienced exile before. Loss of Temple, throne, land administration, and priestly function are covenant judgments, not proof that God dissolved the covenant forever. The prophets repeatedly speak of restoration after judgment. So “where is it now?” is not the same as “God ended it permanently.” And please, tell me what God says in the covenant, in Torah, with Israel what He will do if they rebel? That is a legal binding agreement, and God keeps His Word even if man does not.
11. Colossians 2 and feast/new moon/Sabbath shadows - Paul’s shadow language means these observances point beyond themselves. Of course they did, but it does not mean they were meaningless, dirty, or that God’s calendar was wrong. And if they are abolished, gone, why does it say in Zechariah 14:16 the nations will go to Zion to celebrate Sukkot? Also, Colossians 2:16 says not to let anyone judge you with respect to food/drink/festival/new moon/Sabbath. That is a warning against outsiders judging the community for what they continue to do. It says not to judge them. Why? Perhaps because they, as Israelites, are still obligated under God’s covenant with them to observe them?
12. “Galatians was against Torah identity markers after Christ” - Galatians is very much about Gentiles being pressured to take on Jewish covenant identity markers, especially circumcision, to belong fully. Galatians supports the point that Gentiles do not have to become Jews or come under Torah identity markers. It does not prove Torah was abolished for Israel or that Jeremiah’s Israel/Judah covenant became a Gentile church covenant. Thank you for proving my point on that.
If we as Christ followers are to live by the Torah law how do you explain in Acts where Peter has a vision where God tells him no animal or person is unclean? Also we see in Acts physical circumcision is no longer needed. I would like to understand your thinking on why God started changing the law in the book of Acts but yet we as disciples of Jesus should go back to the Torah law the New Testament changed.
Hello Casey. Thank you for your questions. I few years ago I was exactly where you are, asking the very same questions. I will provide short explanations here but will refer you to previous pieces that I have written for more detailed explanations. As far as Peter's vision in acts, the sheet that came down three times because three gentiles were about to come knocking. Inside of the sheet were "all" kinds of animals, both clean and unclean (Acts 10:12). Peter had options to "kill and eat" a clean animal. The Jews had a mistaken belief that clean in proximity to unclean would cause the clean to become unclean (as in being in the sheet rubbing against each other). This false understanding also applied to Jew and Gentile and can be clearly seen in John 18:28 where those prosecuting Yeshua/Jesus would not enter the Roman governor's house so as to not be defiled so they could eat the Passover that evening. It was about proximity. That is the lesson Peter needed to learn. This was never about food, Peter had options.
Next, I reject the premise that the Law/Torah changed in the New Testament. In order for that to happen, we must call God a liar when He said in Malachi 3:6, "I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed." He does not change. Then you must call Yeshua/Jesus a liar as only a few pages later He said in Matther 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Fulfill does not mean terminate; He just said He wouldn't do that. All things have not been accomplished. Heaven and earth have not disappeared. So, to believe it changed means we must call the One we profess to worship a liar. Not a good starting point.
I do believe that you are arguing that Acts 15 is arguing that circumcision is not necessary "to be saved." That is true. We like to remove the "to be saved" part. Turn the page to Acts 16 and find Paul circumcising Timothy. It isn't a sin to be circumcised. Acts 15 gives the new Gentile believers four commandments to begin their discipleship journey. Consider Acts 15:21 says, "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” I will restate that: The new believers are expected to be in the synagogue every Sabbath where they will learn the rest of the Torah. They didn't have their own copies of the Scriptures; they had to go somewhere that they could hear it, the synagogue. You have access to the Scriptures in the palm of your hand.
It does take a lot more than short articles to fully articulate where modern day western Christianity lost its way. I wrote one: "Blessings and Curses: if my people..." https://blessingsandcursesbook.com
Even Islam is awaiting the 2nd comming of Jesus. This is the EASIEST WAY TO DEMONSTRATE that ISLAM IS FALSE. It is really just a knostic "remix" with a different name & a cult of personality that initiated it.
THE POPE & ALL modern day VICARS ,prophets et al SDA, LDS-Mormons, JW EVEN muslims all FRAUDS waiting for the 2nd comming 🤣🤡🌏🤣
THE OLD SONG OF MOSES v THE NEW SONG OF THD LAMB......"GET IT" YET?!?
SONG OF MOSES:
Deut 4:26 ye shall soon UTTERLY PERISH ... but shall UTTERLY be ⚠️DESTROYED⚠️...30 When thou art in 🚨TRIBULATION🚨 and ALL THESE THINGS COME UPON THEE, even in ⏰THE LATTER DAYS⏰...
Deut 30:1.....WHEN ALL THESE THINGS ARE COME.. THE 🎯BLESSING🎯 and THE 🚨CURSE🚨,....19. Now therefore WRITE YE 🎶THIS SONG🎶... .20. ....and break my covenant. 21.when many evils and 🚨TROUBLES🚨 ...🎶THIS SONG🎶 SHALL TESTIFY AGAINST THEM AS A WITNESS; ...: 22. MOSES THEREFORE WROTE 🎶THIS SONG🎶 the same day.
Deut 31 :29..EVIL .⏰THE LATTER DAYS⏰
Deut 32:17. They 👹SACRIFICED UNTO DEVILS👹, (PS 106:35-37 & Rev 9:20) ..43. REJOICE, O ye nations,.. for HE WILL AVENGE THE BLOOD OF HIS SERVANTS, and will RENDER 🚨VENGEANCE🚨(Luke 21:22)..... 44..Moses.. spake 🎶ALL THE WORDS OF THIS SONG🎶
THIS IS WHY THEY PERSECUTED JESUS. THEY DID NOT PERSECUTE JESUS BECAUSE HE PREACHED "DO GOOD DEEDS"
WHAT DID CHRIST PREACH? 👇
Luke 4:18/ Isaiah 61:1… The spirit of the Lord is upon me ......TO PROCLAIM acceptable ⏰YEAR OF THE LORD⏰ and THE DAY OF 🚨VENGEANCE🚨
Lk 21: 20. And WHEN YE SHALL SEE ⚠️JERUSALEM COMPASSED⚠️ WITH ARMIES, THEN KNOW THAT THE ⚠️DESOLATION⚠️ THEREOF IS NIGH .... 22. THESE BE THE DAYS OF 🚨VENGEANCE,🚨 that ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN MAY BE 💪FULLFILLED💪... 28 ....for your 🎯REDEMPTION🎯 DRAWETH NIGH
They thought Messiah was going to kill everyone who was not a Biological jew in Israel, but Gods "humor" was to destroy all biological jews & START ANEW WITH JUST JESUS "THE SEED" (💥 Rembember God wanted to start over with just moses at Mt Sini But Moses pleaded with God.💥)
⛔DANIEL 9) CONFIRMATION CONSUMATION & LAW CHANGED⛔
👉(💥A💥).. ⚠️DESTROY⚠️... CITY . SANCTUARY... THE END THEREOF SHALL BE WITH A 💦FLOOD💦 💥 (Mat 24 :39 ..until the 💦FLOOD💦 CAME ...so shall.. coming of..Son of man)
Nahum 1: 2... LORD REVENGETH; ....WILL TAKE 🚨VENGEANCE🚨...5. 🔥🌏THE MOUNTAINS QUAKE ...THE HILLS MELT, AND THE EARTH IS BURNED.. THE WORLD, AND ALL THAT DWELL THEREIN🔥🌏...7..IN 🚨THE DAYOF TROUBLE;🚨 ...8...AN OVERRUNNING 💦FLOOD💦... MAKE AN UTTER ⚠️END OF THE PLACE⚠️...10 ...THEY.. DEVOURED AS STUBBLE FULLY DRY...15... THE FEET OF HIM THAT BRINGETH 😇GOOD TIDINGS, THAT PUBLISHETH PEACE!😇
1 Peter 4:7...🔥🌏END OF ALL THINGS IS ST HAND🔥🌏....17 TIME IS COME that JUDGMENT must BEGIN (not end)
👉1 Corinthians 10:7 Neither be ye 👹IDOLATERS👹,.. 11...they are written for our admonition, upon whom 🔥🌏THE ENDS OF THE WORLD ARE COME🔥🌏20 ... the Gentiles sacrifice, they 👹SACRIFICE to DEVILS👹
👉(💥B💥) …UNTO THE END OF THE WAR ⚠️DESOLATIONS⚠️ ARE DETERMINED. 27.. shall ✝️🎶CONFIRM THE COVENANT🎶✝️ WITH MANY FOR ONE WEEK:
1) Rev 1:7.. cometh with clouds.👁👁EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM.. THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM👁👁... (Acts 2:5) THE EARTH SHALL 💧WAIL💧 BECAUSE OF HIM.
Zech 12:1.. ⚠️WHEN THEY SHALL BE IN THE SIEGE⚠️.. 6. IN THAT DAY....👁👁THEYSHALL LOOK UPON ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED👁👁, THEY SHALL 💧MOURN💧 ..11. A GREAT MOURNING IN JERUSALEM...INTHE VALLEY OF ☢☠MEGIDDON*☠☢
Rev 16:14 For they are the 👹SPIRITS OF DEVILS👹 working miracles, ... to☢☠GATHER THEM TO BATTLE☠☢of ⏰THAT GREAT DAY⏰ Almighty. 15. I COME AS A THIEF. .. 16. And HE GATHERED THEM....☢☠ARMAGEDDON☠☢
Zech 14:1. THE ⏰DAY OF THE LORD⏰ COMETH, .. 2.... GATHER ALL NATIONS....⚠️THE CITY SHALL BE TAKEN⚠️
👉(💥A💥) …IN THE MIDST OF THE WEEK (AD 70)... CAUSE THE 🎶SACRIFICE🎶 AND.. ⛔🎶OBLATION TO CEASE🎶⛔
Heb 7 :12..the PRIESTHOOD being ⛔CHANGED,⛔ there is made of necessity a ⛔CHANGE⛔ also of the LAW...
THE SONG OF THE LAMB
Psalms 40:3...he hath put ✝️🎶A NEW SONG✝️🎶 in my mouth,..6 ⛔Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; .. burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.⛔ 7....Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
👉(💥B💥) …MAKE IT ⚠️DESOLATE⚠️, EVEN UNTIL THE 🎯CONSUMMATION🎯
👉1 Cor 13:8 PROPHECIES.. FAIL.. TONGUES,.. CEASE....10 🎯WHEN THAT WHICH IS PERFECT IS COME🎯, then that which is in part shall be done away
FURTHER, IF HEAVEN & EARTH HAS NOT PASSED AWAY THEN THE LAW OF MOSES IS STILL REQUIRED & IN EFFECT NOW!?!
Mat 5:18.....🔥🌏Till HEVEAN AND EARTH PASS🔥🌏 one jot...shall in no wise pass from the law, 💪TILL ALL BE FULLFILLED💪
The earth that burned up & pass away was a people-> Israel NOT a planet!! Man is made of EARTH..... Its not UR world or world of the Maya that was to burn up melt & pass away with a great noise... Popular ideas of Jesus return & "the last day" is from theological Nimrods. 🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣
There is a lot of misunderstanding in this. It is also hard to follow, and Yeshua stopped short in Luke 4:18, He did NOT say "The Day of vengeance..." That is for his second coming. You should probably start over. May I recommend this: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan
Hey, John, try not to spend too much time answering this person. He has hit several of my articles in comments with the same exact word-for-word comments on all of them. And he just keeps it up as one continues answering him.
I will try to keep this short and succinct. There is just so much to say that it may be difficult.
There is much I agree with you on, such as the timeline of the two resurrections - before and after the 1,000 year reign; the ultimate effect of the absolute righteousness, good-heartedness, and the deep and true knowing of God, of those who are in the new covenant; and that the message of Yeshua has been hijacked by a religious system of churches that (broadly speaking, and not necessarily talking about every individual involved in that system) bears fruit contraindicating involvement in that glorious, promised new covenant. These things, to me, are indisputable.
The important adjective describing this covenant is the word "new." As you said, the new covenant is clearly a different covenant, because God said that it would not be like the old. It was substantatively new and different. But, as our glorious God has done with various words and concepts throughout the ages, He has laid out breadcrumbs of phrases with "new" in them, to awaken the hearts of mankind as to His glorious plans.
In fact, what our great God has done, is doing, and will finish up with glorious consummation, in and by the wonderful man, Yeshua, can be summed up in this word "new."
(By the way, I will use the from-Hebrew version of the King's name, "Yeshua," in deference to your preference, instead of the Hebrew->Greek->German->English version, "Jesus." As long as we are all clear on who we are talking about -- this most awesome man, Yeshua the anointed King and priest, now being the new man, having become complete/perfect through death, resurrection, and then exulation to the right hand of the glorious God -- I am fine with that. However, I strongly object to using Saul (or Sha'ul), his Hebrew birth name, instead of Paul (or Paulus/Paulos), his Latin nickname, because that is what his contemporaries called him -- even Peter (though Paul called Peter by his Hebrew nickname). To use Sha'ul just seems like a clickish thing to do -- it adds no true value to the discussion.)
In Isaiah and Jeremiah, God doing something "new" was a frequent theme. He even said that He would call Zion by a "new name" (Isaiah 62:2), when it was full of righteousness and glory. "New things I now declare" (Isaiah 42:9; 43:19 is similar). This is right after that He said that the Servant (the same as the suffering servant, Isaiah 53, who bears our sins and sicknesses, and, although He was childless before death, gives birth to those born in His image by way of suffering the "birthpangs of death" - Isaiah 53:10) would be the Covenant (Isaiah 42:6; also, 49:8). Yeshua is the new covenant.
Yeshua is the new covenant!
He became this through His blood -- by death and resurrection. He is the covenant document! His very being describes the agreement, sealed by a blood covenant, that makes the people be in line with God, so they can have a God/people relationship that the people are totally in line with. The very life of Yeshua Himself -- the first and only fully righteous man, now the firstborn of many to come -- operating inside those who obey Him (operating by the Holy Spirit imparting His righteous, just, believing and loving nature into the very fabric of their being). The Holy Spirit imparts His dying, and his rising, so that, as Peter said, "we can die to sin and live to righteousness/justness."
We become new through the resurrection of Yeshua, by the Holy Spirit flowing from His exalted, righteous human nature. Thus (and this is the only way the following can happen, and why Yeshua is the only way for anyone to be able to come to the Father), we become new humans (the "one new man") by faith in His resurrection, and by receiving the Holy Spirit flowing to us through Yeshua's resurrected and glorified human nature. This is HOW God gives us a new spirit and a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26, and 18:31).
There is much to say about this newness -- this "newness of life" -- but, this will have to suffice for now, with but one remaining comment to follow. I discuss how this "new thing" that God has done, as well as the new covenant, how we find the truth, etc., in some relevant articles: "How Do We Find the Truth," "The Ten Commandments," "Understanding Hell," and "Understanding Hell, Part 2 -- Resurrection and Judgment." These can be found at http://theGreatnessOfJesus.com. Note that it is http, not https (I don't sell anything, so I do not need a secure website; browsers these days sometimes object to the http, however). (Perhaps of side interest would be the article, "Forgiveness Through Blood," which discusses the Ezekiel passages above.) These are all about the awesome work God has done in Yeshua, and how they work out, as His reign as King continues as time unfolds, until, at the consummation of all His works, He makes ALL THINGS NEW. The hope of believers in Yeshua is that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, in which righteousness/justness dwells, and Yeshua ushers in that state where "God is all in all." That is the glorious end of His reign as the anointed King! God's good nature and wisdom and knowledge and love and ways are everthing in everyone!
The main question, then, is WHEN does the new covenant commence? The key to understanding this is in your statement, "I do believe there will be a partial fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 for those that are raised and transformed at Messiah's second coming." Clearly, those who partake of the first resurrection in the Messiah's royal presence (His coming), will be, as you say, experiencing that new covenant. They will be raised, made immortal, and sin and death will have no power over them. They will have a powerful ministry for those thousand years!! What a time that will be! They will be righteous/just/good/holy (completely), and will know YHVH thoroughly. But, as you indicate, this is not yet the "all" of Jeremiah 31. But they are the first ones ushered in; others will follow. In the end of Yeshua's reign, no sin, death, unbelief, or unrighteousness will be left anywhere. "Behold, I make ALL NEW," Yeshua said.
So, the new covenant begins to work before the ultimate-effects are seen. That is the key. It began with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit into those prepared among his people, in roughly 30 CE. This is when the new covenant, Yeshua himself (who "IS OUR LIFE"), was written into the fabric of the Jewish followers' inner beings, with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, flowing out from Yeshua's glorified and righteous humanity. In Him they died to sin, and became alive to righteousness/justness/goodness. His powerful being had a powerful effect in them. Yet, they were babes in this new life, but grew up as time went by. The new covenant -- the Word within their being -- transformed them and made them new. They were a firstfruits of the creation -- the first fruits of the newness taking over the world. Since then, the outworking of this new Covenant, Yeshua in those who obey Him, has been growing. It will grow until the assemby (the new Israel, the chosen generation, the royal priesthood, the holy nation - the society of the saints, being the firstruits in the Kingdom of God) becomes the "glorious assembly, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing," and through them the whole earth becomes full of the glory of God (Numbers 14:21, Isaiah 11:9, Habakkuk 2:15). This is what paves the way for the coming of Yeshua.
The new covenant -- Yeshua written into the being of the holy nation, the assembly of the new Israel (comprised of those of Israel by natural birth who believe Yeshua, and those of the nations grafted in by faith in and obedience to this anointed King of this holy nation) -- is what defines who comprises this new people, the assembly, the people of God (I Peter 2:9-10). This new covenant commenced the compilation of this new nation, through whom God will make Himself known, and through whom He will judge the nations (I Cor. 6:1-3), and through whom He will bring all into subjection to Yeshua and make all things new. They -- by the glory of God -- will set the whole creation free (Romans 8:18-23).
The covenant works and grows until the ultimate fulfillment is finished, and all are righteous and all know God thoroughly. Yeshua is this covenant. Yeshua is THE Word. Yeshua is the law. Yeshua is the new Torah. Yeshua is the revelation of God to man (Hebrews 1:2). God has spoken many glorious words as time moved along. His Torah (including the heart of it, the Ten Words/Ten Commandments), are a glorious revelation of what He wants his people to do and be, and of the relationship He wants to have with them. But the greater and better Word, of which the Torah and the prophets began to give a glimpse into, is the Word Himself -- the very speaking of YHVH, the image of the invisible God. All the words before Yeshua were a little hazy compared to the greater speaking of God in His son. In Yeshua, we now get exactness. He is the "express image of His [God's] person." This cannot happen by mere human descriptions and explanations. It takes the Holy Spirit lifting us up into the heavenly realms, into the realms of God, and there having spirit-to-spirit communion with the Son, and through Him spirit-to-spirit communion with His Father, and come to know Him by direct union and flowing in His being. This is the significance of the gift of the Holy Spirit, who could not be given until Yeshua died, rose, and was glorified. "The Spirit was not yet given, because Yeshua was not yet glorified" (John 7:39). "Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise fo the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this that you are seeing and hearing" (Acts 2:33).
I had to cut off my last three paragraphs, since it was beyond some limit. I will wait to post them until I get your permission. I just wanted to let you know, because it might seem slightly incomplete as it is -- though much of what I wanted to say has been said.
Hello John. I can see that you put a lot of time and effort into your response. I appreciate you adding to the conversation. I like to keep things simple since YHVH is not a God of confusion. Yeshua’s first coming was not as the Messiah. His first coming was to fulfill Deuteronomy 18:15-19. He is “the Prophet” like Moses. A prophet’s job is to speak the words of YHVH and to call people back to YHVH and the covenant. He did exactly that by “renewing” the covenant from Sinai. His death and resurrection paid the penalty due, but did not remove the requirements of the Torah. He taught Torah. He said Torah would not be done away with (Matthew 5:17-19). You wrote “new Torah.” Where do you find that in Jeremiah 31? There is one Torah, we do not get to create new ones. God will not create a new one as He said in Deuteronomy 4:2, do not add to or subtract from the Torah; it was perfect when He gave it and you cannot improve upon perfect. I am sticking with the case that I made. The New Covenant is not here yet. It cannot come until He can make it with “the House of Israel” and “the House of Judah.” Israel, properly defined, (https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/have-you-considered-this-israel) doesn’t even know who they are. I will also stick with when it is fulfilled, that “all” means “all,” without exception, everyone living, it will be after the Great White Throne Judgement where those who chose to NOT be part of Israel (grafted or re-grafted in) will be thrown into the lake of fire (still 1000 years in our future). We are still teaching because we still do not know Him. You and I having this conversation actually proves that definitively; you are trying to teach me and I am trying to teach you. I do believe that it would be beneficial to you to spend some time in the other articles that I have on my Stack. Consider “The Ten Commandments” https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/have-you-considered-this-the-ten. Consider “Easter or Passover” https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/easter-or-passover. Those are good and free, others would be beneficial. I highly recommend my book Blessings & Curses: if my people… that allows me to go much deeper into the story from Genesis to Revelation: https://blessingsandcursesbook.com.
Please feel free to add whatever else you feel is necessary in the conversation for others that find this to consider. That is the point of this Substack!
I think I will add the last three paragraphs, because to me they complete the thought I wanted to share. Here they are:
Yeshua told His disciples that up until that time (just before His death and resurrection) he had spoken to them in "figures of speech," but that soon He would speak plainly of the Father. What is this plain/clear/precise speaking? It is when He tells us of the Father, making known the Father, in the divine nature -- a thing of experiencing God beyond thinking, meditating, and hearing human explanations -- it is seeing the nature and being of God by the divine nature itself, now joined to our spirit. We have become children of God, as John said. We have become partakers of the divine nature, as Peter said. He partook of our nature, Hebrews says, so that we can now partake of His nature. THIS is how we become righteous/just/holy -- by a change of nature, and resulting transformation, coming to us in the flow of the power of the Holy Spirit imparting Yeshua's God-filled humanity into our humanity. Thus, we get clear and full experiencing of God directly.
THIS is Yeshua as the Word within our being! This is the "new" and greater Word! The Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospel accounts, the writings of the apostles, etc., are all terribly significant. But, The Word is greater than it all combined. These all speak roughly, and partially, of all the good things our Father wants us to know, do, and live. In the New Covenant, the "new" Word (who has always been the Word, but now is the Word in human form, and, better yet, is now, through death and resurrection, written into our humanity), we get the best and most accurate (and the only EFFECTIVE) word of all.
So, Yeshua is the Word, the Covenant, the Temple of the new covenant, the high priest of the new covenant (after the order of Melchizedek), the passover Lamb, the sin sacrifice, the priest offering the sacrifice, the fire of the altar, the King sitting on the new and greater Mount Zion, in the New Jerusalem, in the mountains of God's holiness. We are the firstfruits of God's creation (James 1:18), born of this Word. The new Covenant is what makes us His people, and only those who agree to the new Covenant by bowing the knee to Yeshua and willingly losing their own life (as Yeshua did His), being crucified with Him by the operation of the Holy Spirit, are members of the new Israel. That is how we become grafted in. And, this covenant will continue to do its work until all becomes new, because "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Yeshua, the Anointed, is Lord."
I would not correct you in any of this. As a Gentile grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel, I cannot understand why we would believe that the same thing expected of Israel is not expected for the adopted children. Nor do I understand that we “have” to keep Torah. But because we love the Father and Son, we obey. In the Book of Revelation, we’re told that those who will be saved are those who keep the commandments of Yeshua. Why would I want to skip that? Thank you for your writing! I loved it! Yah bless!
Thank you for your kind words. I will add, “who wouldn’t want to be called great in the kingdom by keeping and teaching Yah’s commandments?” (Matthew 5:19)
Am I to take it that you think I am incorrect in what I wrote? If so, I would ask you to post a coherent argument making your points to clarify where I am wrong. I would also ask that you do it without using the much misunderstood Paul.
The Apostles and the 1st century Christian’s were from the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Jesus told them that He would return in their lifetime. Matt 16:27-28 Matt 24:34. So if He hasn’t returned yet, doesn’t that make Jesus a false prophet?
I would like to know how you know the genealogy of all twelve Apostles. Yeshua’s ministry was in Judah. Israel was scattered. The odds are they were all from either Judah, Benjamin, or Levi, the tribes that make up the kingdom of Judah.
You either terribly misunderstand the verses that you cite to say that He told them that He would return in their lifetimes, or you are intentionally trying to be deceitful. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you just misunderstand. I will clarify.
Matthew 16:27-28 was fulfilled and I can do it with one word: Revelation. John saw and wrote about it. Verse 28 says “some who are standing here.” “Some” is defined as “an indeterminate number.” One saw before he died. Fulfilled.
Plucking Matthew 23:34 out of context is intellectually dishonest. Looking back at verse 32 you will see that this is a parable. The “this generation” that would not pass away was the generation that saw the things the parable spoke of, and it would only be the people actually hearing this parable if those things happened in their lifetimes. They did not.
Yeshua is not a false prophet, he is “the Prophet” spoken of my Moses in Deuteronomy 18. Go read that chapter and then read John 1 when John the Baptist was asked about “that prophet.”
God is revealing the truth! Test the Spirits to see if they are true. Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-20; Matthew 26:17-29 all tell us that the last supper was indeed the Passover that Jesus ate with His Disciples. The Passover day starts the evening before the day in God’s calendar. But with this exception to this article I will have to agree with the Torah being the “New Covenant “ written on our hearts and minds. For Jesus eluded to this in Matthew 5:17-20. Here’s a book that should be read as well. Available at Amazon or Barnes and Nobles.
Hi Ben. Thank you for reading. I used to be confused about the verses you use to say that the Last Supper was a Passover. The Bible itself says that it was not. We need to understand the chronology of what was happening, what God had commanded in the Torah. I don't think you followed the link where I wrote that it was not a Passover because that would take you to the previous article that I wrote that provided the correct chronology and Scripture to prove that it was not. The translations that we read in the Gospels that you site were translated by people that didn't understand the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish context of the events transpiring. They did their best, but they missed the mark. Please consider: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/easter-or-passover. I think you will be amazed at the actual story. You will even find out where the 24 elders we are introduced to in Revelation come from. (I don't see that you actually included the book that you mentioned). Shalom
I’m aware of God’s timeline and calendar, and Jesus Himself told the Disciples that He desired to eat the Passover meal with them before He was to suffer as our Passover Lamb. Leviticus 23 lays out God’s feasts, and Genesis 1 lays out God’s day. I don’t agree with your analogy with the Last Supper, but I enjoyed reading your article.
I thought I understood the calendar but did not. I now understand better. It is not all about the calendar so much as what was happening at the Temple as well. In the article I referenced, I address your very point about how He desired to eat the Passover meal with them. You would be blessed to read it and then decide if I am still incorrect. Shalom.
According to this calendar which is accurate this article is incorrect because the Passover is not on a Wednesday it is on a Monday that year. The years that work are in my book “Remember the Sabbath” which are 30 AD or 31 AD for the year Jesus was sacrificed and rose from the dead. The Sabbath is the day Jesus Rose from the Dead and has been changed to the first day of the week by the translators for the Roman Catholics who are the ones that produced the first translations. The Greek translation of the word in every account is the First of the Sabbaths which corresponds to Leviticus 23 and the count down to the festival of First Fruits which we labeled Pentecost. Keep digging brother, you’re on the right track with a few mistakes. Dig into the History of the Bible and the Roman Catholic Churches influence upon it. The First Fruits wave is an interesting timeline, but it doesn’t really fit with what the original language tells us about the day of the week. Nonetheless Jesus is the First Fruits of men.
Hi Ben, I appreciate your study and insight. It is a stretch to actually say any calculated calendar "is accurate." Without correlating evidence as to what exact day that a month actually started, the best we have is a calculation as to when the moon should have been visible, not when it was visible. Too many atmospheric variables to calculate that it was visible. The other issues is that we are trying to determine the first month which means we are trying to determine if the barley was aviv at the new moon. There is no way to calculate that, so we do not know if there was a thirteenth month necessary or not. It is a best guess as to what might have been. This is the calculated calendar that I use: https://torahcalendar.com/Calendar.asp?YM=Y28M1. On this calendar the prior year was calculated to be only 12 months. If an Ader Bet was necessary that year, then if you go to the second month (which would have then been the first month) then everything lines up just as I wrote. YHVH isn't going to make it easy, we have to search with all of our hearts if we are to find Him. Look beyond the calculated to what else was possible and how that fits what was happening. I fully agree with you that Yeshua rose at the very end of the Sabbath day, not the first day of the week. First Fruits is always on the first day of the week, being the day after the regular weekly Sabbath during the Feast of Unleavened Bread which then begins the counting of the Omer leading the Shavuot, or sometimes called the Feast of Weeks. There is a First Fruits of the barley offering during Unleavened Bread and then there is a First Fruits of the wheat harvest offering at Shavuot. Two different first fruits. Yeshua is the First Fruits as Paul says, but that is not how He fulfilled that Feast during Unleavened Bread. The Feast was an offering; He was the High Priest making the offering of those that came out of the grave after He rose from the dead that were seen by many and never heard from again. They were the First Fruits offering. They are now sitting on 24 thrones just and John saw in Revelation. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another!
YHVH said in Malachi 3:6 that He does not change. The writer of Hebrews says that “Yeshua Messiah is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Time has nothing to do with a God that exists outside of space/time. Take Him at his word. The story is much more than is preached in the Christian church. You would do well to consider my book where I have detailed what I think; it took 220 pages to do it, not a comment section of a blog post. Https://www.blessingsandcursesbook.com.
If it were simple I wouldn’t have said “Am I the only one that sees this?” It is my style and it is telling a story. It is challenging a lot of long held beliefs and probably will take several readings to really comprehend and follow the logic and validate the Scriptures. I don’t understand your final question.
In John 1 It says “and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” The Word is Yeshua, so absolutely YES. Yeshua also said “If you have seen Me you have seen the Father,” as well as “I and the Father are one.” I do write a little deeper on that in my prior article “Easter or Passover”
John isn’t talking about Jesus. Jesus is not the word until it becomes flesh. That’s why he says, ‘in the beginning’ was the word. If he wanted to say it was Jesus we would be reading that.
I have been pondering Jeremiah 31 for a while and always wondered about who the convent was made with. It wasn’t gentiles according to Jeremiah 31, so it never made sense to me.
The only thing I don’t agree with is Yeshua because equal to YHWH in a Greek metaphysical sense. I don’t believe in the trinity as most do, which is plagued with Greek influence.
I believe Yeshua when he says the Father is greater than I, and there is one true God and one Father. Paul affirms this also in 1 Cor. 8:6
Thank you for your response. I agree with you on the trinity. For your consideration on the Yeshua/YHVH issue I suggest John1 and Zechariah 14. John 1 says that the Word (Yeshua) made flesh created all things. Genesis 2:4 says YHVH created. Zechariah discusses what most people call the war of Armageddon which we say happens at Yeshua's second coming. In Zechariah, the name YHVH is all over the text hidden behind "the LORD." I appreciate that this made you think; that is the goal.
Yes! I believe that Yeshua was divine, but I’ve been studying from an agency/functional sense, not Greek ontological.
He embodied the creative Word of GOD, but not as a separate entity. The wisdom of proverbs 8 was also at creation, but it’s not a separate entity – it is an extension of Yahweh himself.
Anyways, I’m learning to understand how a Hebrew would understand John 1.
Thank you for subscribing! I tried to follow you, but I couldn’t find a button to do so.
How do gentiles follow all of Torah? The Torah was given to Israelites at mount Sinai. The covenant was with them. How do gentiles adhere to Torah in 21st century? Jews can’t even follow Torah without a temple right?
Although Acts 15 does lay out requirements for gentiles to adhere to.
We cannot do all of the Torah. No one has ever been able to keep all of the Torah, and no one was ever expected to do all of the Torah. Some things only apply to Priests. Some only to Levites. Some only to women and others only to men. Some only applied to farmers. It never all applied to anyone. Some of the Torah require a functioning Temple/Tabernacle and Levitical Priesthood. Obviously, those cannot be kept at this current time. But, because some can't be kept, we are without excuse for those that we can keep. Consider Luke 1:6, about Zechariah and Elizabeth, "Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly." There are two mere mortals that could keep Torah. Zechariah was a priest so the requirements on him were drastically increased relative to the common man, yet he was blameless. It can be done. Consider YHVH's own words in Deuteronomy 30:11, "For this commandment I give you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." YHVH says we can do it. Do we call Him a liar? I did write a book that discusses this and will make you think about a lot of other things: Blessings & Curses: if my people... https://blessingsandcursesbook.com. Shalom
My friend sent me this. Would love to hear your thoughts.
When he says both he’s referring to the new covenant as a suzerian style vow made on his dead body by YHWH - he was faithful to death, and Jeremiah 31.
“Yeshua’s words over the cup are not separate from Jeremiah 31. They are his claim that Jeremiah 31 is being inaugurated through his sacrificial death. The fact that Jeremiah’s promise is not yet universally consummated in every visible sense does not mean it has not begun. It means the new covenant is already established in Messiah and not yet exhausted in history. Gentiles fit not as an afterthought but as those brought into Israel’s promised blessing through union with the faithful Messiah. So yes, it can be both. More than that, it has to be both, because the blood of the supper is precisely how the promised covenant becomes historically operative.”
2,000 years and the world looks nothing like the promises of that covenant. The world, or should I say the Christian world, wants the Mt. Sinai covenant to be null and void which helps sell that the Torah is "ended." The world is so much easier when you can distill it down to the greatest commandments summarized as "Love God and Love others." It works when you can define what that looks like. When Yeshua answered that question He said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Most people like to leave the last sentence off when quoting this. The Law [Torah] and the prophets are the "how to" of the first two commandments. Yeshua also said in Matthes 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." It is common for the word "fulfill" to be interpreted as "end." That doesn't go with the next sentence when He said that "until heaven and earth pass away." I made my case. I used scripture to back it up. "For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it." Few are going to find this. The world is going to fight it. That is what Scripture says. You might also want to consider my prior article "Easter or Passover" where I discuss "the cup."
Hello Jerry, I would like to recommend to you my prior post "A Bible Reading Plan." https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan. In that you will find that you will never understand Paul until you understand what Paul read. There was no NT that Paul could consult. Everything He wrote has its roots in the OT/Tanakh. Read that plan for the "why."
Next big issue here is allowing the Bible translators to deceive you about the church. Consider that at Mt. Sinai, it was the "qahal" assembled at Mt. Sinai, the Israelites. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew "qahal" to the Greek "ekklesia." English translations that translate the Hebrew "qahal" translate it to either "assembly" or "congregation." The is the OT/Tanakh. Move to the NT and "ekklesia" is translated as "church." Why the inconsistency. "Ekklesia" should be consistently translated as "assembly" or "congregation." Why was this done in the NT? There was an agenda to create something new, a church. I do explain all of this in my book, available on my Stack.
On a broad stroke, allow me to put down in writing why you may have lost a general perspective of the New Covenant Versus the Old Covenant and the Torah.
1. Believers in Jesus are not under the Law of Moses (Torah)
In 1 Corinthians 8:20-21, Paul wrote,
"20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law."
Paul here tells us here definitively that he himself is not under the Law (the Torah), when he was talking about preaching to the Jews (v 20).
So believers in Jesus are no longer under the Law of Moses (the Torah).
So the issue of how much or how little we need to do to observe the Torah as if it applied to believers of Jesus is therefore a non-issue.
2. Believers in Jesus are now under Christ's Law.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:21 that he is not lawless, but is now under the Law of Christ.
The Law of Christ would comprise all that Jesus taught as well as the revelation He gave by His Spirit to the other New Testament writers.
3. We are living in the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31, when we believed in Jesus.
It says in Jeremiah 31:31 that God will make a New Covenant with Israel and Judah.
God also says in Jeremiah 31:33-34, that under this New Covenant,
“33 I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbour, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,”
This is confirmed in the giving of the Holy Spirit to all believers in Jesus, whereby the Holy Spirit will lead us into "ALL TRUTH" (John 16:13).
If you read God's word, you can depend on the Holy Spirit to teach you all truths, and you will not need to tell one another, "Know the Lord."
Likewise, John confirms in 1 John 2, that we will know the truth because we have the Holy Spirit in us (the anointing), and therefore we do not need anyone to teach us, because the Holy Spirit teaches us ALL THINGS, as seen here below:
1 JOHN 2:20, 27
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.
27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things….
4. For new believers or carnal believers, God has set up teachers in the Church to teach the believers basic truths of God's salvation, as per Ephesians 4:11.
However, God expects and wants all believers to grow to maturity in Christ with a deep walk with the Holy Spiri so that they know all truth, as promised in the words of Jesus, and will not be deceived.
The lack of success in most churches and believers in their growth in Jesus, therefore resulting in a shallow walk with the Holy Spirit, and therefore not understanding God's truths for this hour, does not negate the fact that we are living in the New Covenant as promised in Jeremiah 31:31, and fulfilled by the coming of Jesus as our Passover Lamb.
SHALOM.
Thank you for your response. I do appreciate you bringing Scriptures to argue your points but do believe that you misunderstand Paul just as Peter said that you would. You cannot know what Paul was saying unless you know what Paul knew, what Paul was reading. The New Testament did not exist. The Bereans validated Paul with the only Scriptures that they had, The Old Testament, the Tanakh. You make a great argument with the doctrines and dogmas of the westernized Christian church, but this is a reinterpretation through a Greek mindset of events that happened in a Hebrew context. That said, the argument is not very Berean. The whole story in the New Testament is telling a Hebrew/Israelite story, not a Greek one. The Greeks interpreting the story didn't have the correct context to understand the Hebrew context. The modern-day Christian church was formalized hundreds of years after the apostles walked the Earth. It was built on a Greek/Roman [mis]understanding where it ignored its very roots. You would do well to consider my Bible Reading Plan with the reasoning behind what I suggest: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan. My book would also be valuable to your understanding (see my response to Laura). Shalom
Yikes! This is an extremely inaccurate reading of Scripture through a western lens and terribly misinformed.
The Spirit did not teach you this since it contradicts Scripture.
Paul did a sacrifice in Acts to prove he upholds Torah.
“After greeting them, he reported to them in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his service. And when they heard, they began glorifying God. They said, “You see, brother, how many myriads there are among the Jewish people who have believed—and they are all zealous for the Torah. They have been told about you—that you teach all the Jewish people among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to walk according to the customs. What’s to be done then? No doubt they will hear that you have come. “So do what we tell you. We have four men who have a vow on themselves. Take them, and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. That way, all will realize there is nothing to the things they have been told about you, but that you yourself walk in an orderly manner, keeping the Torah. “As for Gentiles who have believed, however, we have written by letter what we decided—for them to abstain from what is offered to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from immorality.” The next day Paul took the men, purifying himself along with them. He went into the Temple, announcing when the days of purification would be completed and the sacrifice would be offered for each one of them.” Acts 21:19-26 TLV
Jews were never called to abandon Torah. And Paul never abandoned Torah.
“When he arrived, the Judeans who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing against him many serious charges which they could not prove. Paul said in his defense, “I have committed no offense against the Torah of the Jewish people, or against the Temple, or against Caesar.””
Acts 25:7-8 TLV
The gentiles though were not directly the recipients of Torah, although many non Jews were present with the Israelites who came out of Egypt.
Paul even circumcised Timothy according to Torah.
“Paul wanted this man to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him for the sake of the Jewish people in those places—for they all knew that his father was Greek.” Acts 16:3 TLV
Even after Yeshua was raised, the talmidin continued meeting in the temple and doing the prayers three times a day that they always had been.
“Day by day they continued with one mind, spending time at the Temple and breaking bread from house to house. They were sharing meals with gladness and sincerity of heart,” Acts 2:46 TLV
“Now Peter and John were going up to the Temple at the ninth hour, the time of prayer.” Acts 3:1 TLV
“Is God the God of the Jewish people only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. Since God is One, He will set right the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then nullify the Torah through faithfulness? May it never be! On the contrary, we uphold the Torah.”
Romans 3:29-31 TLV
I am with you Andrew. And the whole Greek vs Hebrew claim that all us western folk have been duped (supposedly) for 2000 years, is actually denying the inspiration of the New Testament.
So one can quote scripture endlessly, NT and OT, but they will reinterpret it for you to fit their need to be under the bondage of the law, so they can keep the law and save themselves.
No need to keep the Law "to be saved." That is by grace, not works. We agree on that. Yes, the western church has been duped by the god of this age, Satan deceives the whole world. The western church has used the NT to reinterpret the OT to create an institution that Messiah did not create. That is easy when most of Christianity follows the hard-to-understand Paul instead of Messiah. More sermons are preached on Paul and the use Paul to reinterpret the Gospels and Yeshua's own words. You would benefit from learning the whole story in my book Blessings & Curses:if my people... https://www.blessingsandcursesbook.com. I know, TL;DR. For a shorter read, please consider: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan.
Can you even say or write the word-name Jesus?
Do you know that the name “Jesus” didn’t even exist until about 500 years ago. The hard “J” was not part of the Alphabet until that time. That name did not exist for three quarters of the two thousand years since He walked the Earth. The name Yeshua has meaning. It was the name that the angle told both Mary and Joseph to call him. We should obey. I will be posting an article about this very thing soon.
Here is my latest on the Names. Hope you find them enlightening: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/god-has-a-name
I am certain John, and we all can say and write the word Jesus, but His Mother called Him Yeshua, and our Father calls Him Yeshua.. it is not difficult to say, so I say it the way it was given to His family..And one day, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess the NAME!
Oh for Heaven's sake some of these people...However His name is pronounced by WHOEVER doesn't change Who He is! I'm just glad He understands my Southern drawl and He loves us all! Come on, Jesus!
And that is fine with me.
Yeah I didn't like that either
Your not just saying the western church is wrong but the eastern and oriental churches also. You’re saying every Christian has been wrong, not just from 200-300 years after but immediately after the apostles the church supposedly abruptly ended and started teaching heresy. Since what you are teaching “that we all need to be following the Torah”disagrees with the earliest Christian writings. Just to be honest with what you are suggesting.
Additionally it is incorrect to say that Christians say we are not under the law. We still believe in the three uses of the laws as stated during the reformation. Roman Catholics and other believers something similar I believe. The law of grace also isn’t just completely divorced from the old law but transforms it. It hasn’t abolished the law but fulfills it (hence what Christ says). i could bring bible verses to support but i am in my phone if you are interested i could do that though.
Hello Neil, thank you for your comment. I will get right to the point. Yeshua did not come to create a new thing called a church. Unfortunately, the translators of the Bible chose to be disingenuous when they translated the Greek word "ekklesia" in the New Testament. In the Greek Septuagent, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures around 200BCE, the translators translated the Hebrew word we see in our English Bibles as "Assembly," or "Congregation," as "ekklesia." We never see the word "church" in the OT. We must wrestle with the fact that, somehow, the meaning of "ekklesia" magically changed after that page erroneously added to the Bible that says, "New Testament." This means that in Matthew 16:18, Yeshua did not say "I will build by church," He said, "I will build by assembly, my congregation, pointing back to the assembly, the Israelites at Mt. Sinai. Yeshua did say in Matthew 15:24, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." At His first coming, He did not come as the Messiah, the conquering King. He came as "the Prophet" that Moses wrote about, that YHVH promised, in Deuteronomy 18:15, "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him."
I was raised strict Roman Catholic. I spent another most of two decades as an evangelical Protestant (A Protesting Catholic!). I am now neither. Both are two sides of the same coin, a church that Yeshua did not create. I finally read the Bible, asked a lot of questions and arrived at "The Way" given at Sinai is what how we are expected to live.
I must say that you do misunderstand Matthew 5:17-19. You really need to study that in detail. (Here is the first in a three-part series that will help: https://substack.com/@pronomianzoomer/p-173230135). The Law, Torah, is not, and will never be, done away with. Yeshua said that. It is the very Torah that will be written on our hearts when the New Covenant finally arrives, so it cannot have been done away with. I will end here. I cannot articulate everything in a comment on a blog post. That said, I write a lot more on my Substack, "Have you considered this?" and I did take a significant amount of time to write an entire book that goes deep into this and many other things that I offer for your consideration: https://Blessingsandcursesbook.com.
Shalom.
I think one of the biggest issues too is how most Christians define Torah. It does not mean law – it means instruction. The word itself comes from the root “to teach/instruct”.
Torah was YHWH’s instruction to the Israelites on how to live and be set apart from all the nations.
According to the Israelites, Torah is perfect and acts as a lamp to guide them through life. It is refreshing to their lives.
Maybe we should view Torah through Yeshua and everyone’s Bible in their time – the tanakh, not the NT.
“The Torah of Adonai is perfect, restoring the soul. The testimony of Adonai is trustworthy, making the simple wise.” Psalms 19:8 TLV
“Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” Psalms 119:105 TLV
I agree. Unfortunately, most every English translation of the Tanakh will translate it as "Law" so that is, unfortunately, our starting point. I appreciate you bringing this to the discussion.
My point is mostly that you misrepresent what most traditional Christians believe. Although I will agree with you that evangelical churches do abolish the las including the Torah and the renewed law and God’s eternal law depending on how interpret the covenants and such. But again most Protestant churches Anglican Lutheran and Reformed, don’t do away with the law although they believe the law of grace is a transformed version of God’s law. Also putting more emphasis on God’s eternal law separate from the Torah. It is easiest to see this is the sacraments as transformed or fulfilled versions of the Torah. Circumcision and washings to baptism. Christ as the ultimate sacrifice in the Holy Communion. Again just saying I think you misrepresent the beliefs of many Christians to say they have done away with the law.
I don't think that I misrepresent what traditional Christians think. They believe that Grace trumps Torah. Grace is divine empowerment to do Torah and to cover sin when you fail. Not when deliberately failing, when you mistakenly/unknowingly fail. Answer this question from Paul, "Shall we go on sinning so that Grace shall abound?" Sin is violation of Torah (1 John 3:4). Apparently, Christianity answers, "Absolutely!!!" (Paul did not). I wrote a post on Grace because it is a very misunderstood word. You should consider it: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/have-you-considered-this-grace.
I would ask you to define "God's eternal law." I can do it in one word: Torah. What do you mean because it appears that you do not agree with my definition? The word in Jerimiah 31, the Law that will be written on hearts is "Torah." No getting around that. That is what it says. Check a concordance, don't just believe me because I said it. Test it.
Both Catholics and Protestants (Protesting Catholics) violate Deuteronomy 4:2, YHVH speaking, "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you." By eliminating/ignoring those parts of Torah that you can keep, Christianity "subtracts from." By ignoring the Mo'edim (Feasts) commanded by YHVH, they are subtracting. By creating Christmas and Easter out of whole cloth they are "adding to." By not keeping the eternal seventh day Sabbath and switching to Sunday worship, they are both subtracting and adding. I guess if you throughout Deuteronomy then none of this matters (which the church does).
I have made my arguments in the links provided, no need to cite everything here. I have made it very easy for you to dig deeper into what I am saying. There are many other challenging posts on my Substack which would be worth exploring.
Since you asked I will certainly read your article. Although since I have not written any articles to show you. I will recommend The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice
By Daniel Brevint. As it covers through its discussion of Holy Communion the relationship between Old and New Testament
Thank your for your suggestion. I would seriously recommend my book Blessings & Curses:if my people… to dig deeper into all of this: https://blessingsandcursesbook.com
Fearsome! This is the first discussion I've read regarding what the Old and New Covenant are since I ditched dispensationalism. You are right in that most Christians I know believe Jesus paid it all. They, we, serve the Lord by serving others and by love and morality as embodied in the Ten Commandments, but we all believe that it is impossible not to sin, and that is exactly why we need a savior, The Savior. I appreciate your zeal, John, and your research. I've added your book to my Amazon cart. But, as you said in the comments, I will need to reread this article to really absorb it. Right now, I'm wondering where you go as far as the Gentiles inclusion in the cross of Yeshua-Jesus, the Christ. Would you call us all the ungodly because our cornerstone is Christ and Christ alone? For several years now, and maybe because I was a paralegal, I have seen the benefits of obeying good law, law meant for the welfare of all and the purity of an individual. I believe that the law is applicable to us today even though we are saved, and the reason I hold to this is not for salvation, but for the love of God and building his kingdom. Our gratitude, our testimony, our love for God. However, I have only been able to understand the Ten Commandments to be like our federal and state statutes pertaining to our nation, only the Commandment of God are for God's Kingdom, his people, and we are to bless our nation by adhering to God's laws in our time and culture/nation. Then, the rest of the Torah is understood to me to be like case law that interprets the statutes per culture and time and situation. I have understood God's precepts to be "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of slavery" like a whereas clause in a contract, or the Micah passage, "He has shown you, oh man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you, but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." The fact that I even adhere to the above convictions has caused a lot of division in how I practice my faith and how other Christians practice theirs. And, although I believe the Sabbath is to be honored, I have not yet been successful in adhering to it in our culture. The best that I can achieve is to "enter into his rest" as in Hebrews, or to "Be still and know that I am God" as I go about the pragmatics of my day. As the Psalmist wrote, "I have lived too long among the tents of hate." So, yes, I am a conflicted believer seeking the way of truth and still knowing where I belong in my relationship with God. I flinch reading about those Christians who are rebellious to the Torah being lost, but I don't believe I am one. Still, I am growing and learning, so please do what you can to explain yourself more here? Also, there is a pragmatic question about the (rebellious/ungodly/Israeli and Judean) lives lost between the engagement/marriage at Mt. Siani and the culmination of the bride being taken back.
Hi Laura. I so appreciate your comment here. I hear in your remarks someone struggling to find truth. I am right there with you! Keep going; keep struggling with the hard questions; keep praying for guidance. I created this Substack to write about what I am seeing. I read a lot of other people's writing trying to further my understanding. I learn a lot just doing the research to write any given piece. These are small bites, so it is tough to get too deep into a big story which is why I also wrote the book. I do believe a lot of what you questioned of me above is addressed in the book. In that medium I have more space to show the overarching story in a way most don't see and then drill into the details. Sometimes the details are hard to understand outside of the context of the overarching story. You will find many surprises in the book that I don't ask you to believe but to test. I do discuss the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments that are not what you think they are. I also go deep into the Gentile inclusion that you asked about above. In addition, I also point you to other resources that I found valuable that have aided my understanding. I do hope you will read it and would value continuing the discussion afterwards.
Thank you, and I will. I also process through writing and thoughtful discussions and whatever secret treasures God offers ✨️ as I walk with him. Since I'm a poet and musician, or was in my youth, I started rhyming and metering the Psalms, all 150, into hymns to make them accessible to the non liturgical Church. It was this verse by verse meditation that began to change my faith and delight my spirit and make me question things I believed. On Substack, I offer these Psalm Hymns as modern songs for contemplation.
Thank you for sharing your work. Thank you for doing that. Keep questioning; we never have it all figured out. Shalom.
Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:16 that we have the mind of Christ. That means as regenerate believers, we think like Him. When are we ever going to stop thinking like humans, and live FROM the risen Jesus!
So, what is your argument with what I have written? When are we ever going to stop thinking like humans? How about 1 Corinthians 50-57? That is the ultimate regeneration. Has not happened yet, though it will soon!
Hi John. I think you are overthinking salvation (and covenants). It is simple, really. All is revealed to the regenerate to their measure and according to Yahweh’s plan for us. We do not have to work or strive for anything. The Book of Hebrews in Chapter 8 tells us of the better covenant, and concludes with Hebrews 8:13 LSB When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. Please do not engage in linguistic gymnastics with this verse or the whole chapter. Barnabas could not be clearer. His entire message is about the greater High Priest. In my view, he was of equal standing with Paul in the New Testament. After all, he was Paul’s mentor, hence why his book to the Hebrews (and his Epistle) was not attributed to him. He believed everyone knew he was the author. Submission to Jesus is our destiny. The entire Old Testament should be read in the light of the New, not the other way around. Daniel 9:24 tells us that the visions and prophecies of the Hebrew nation have ceased with Jesus. All prophetic utterances since Jesus were by Jesus through Jesus, no matter who wrote them. The New sheds light on the Old. This is the whole message of Jesus. Look at the discussions on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24. Very important message. Who closed their eyes, and who opened them when appropriate?
Hi Geoff. I appreciate your heart felt response. That said, my opinion is that it is 100% backwards. You base what you say on Paul & Barnabas, equating Paul to Barnabas. That said, Peter said you would misunderstand him/them. You are proving the point with this argument. The Bereans verified everything that Paul said using the only Scriptures that they had which we usually call the Old Testament, the Tanakh. There was no New Testament. With that in mind, I always approach the much-misunderstood Paul such that when I think He contradicted the OT, Yeshua, or YHVH that I am misunderstanding Paul; that is a good starting point. You must prove everything that Paul or Barnabas said in the OT; if you can't, you misunderstand Paul/Barnabas. Many things that Christians consider "fulfilled" in the NT are only partially fulfilled at the first coming. Much/most of the prophecy will only find its ultimate fulfillment after the second coming of Messiah. Everything is pointing to the not yet here Kingdom of God here on earth. That will be here very shortly. You really should consider my Bible Reading Plan to put things into the correct order. https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan?r=3qcjns
John, thank you for sharing your article with me. I do appreciate your desire to root the covenant discussion in Jeremiah, the prophets, Torah, and the Tanakh rather than simply accepting later inherited assumptions. On that, I agree with you. The “new covenant” should not be defined apart from Jeremiah 31, and Jeremiah 31 clearly identifies the covenant as being with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It is not a detached church covenant, nor does it erase Torah. The Torah being written on the heart is the opposite of Torah being abolished.
Where I would frame things differently is in how Yeshua’s words at the cup relate to Jeremiah 31.
I do believe Yeshua was intentionally referring to Jeremiah 31 when he spoke of the covenant in his blood. As the appointed mediator, royal Son, heir of David to the throne of Israel, and representative of YHWH, he was not creating a separate covenant disconnected from the prophets. He was ratifying the promised covenant renewal Jeremiah had already announced.
In ancient covenant logic, a covenant did not have to be discarded in order to be renewed. When leadership changed, when a new appointed ruler came forward, or when a people entered a new stage of covenant administration, the covenant could be reaffirmed, reissued, or ratified under the authority of the suzerain. The terms were not abandoned; they were brought forward under renewed administration.
That is how I understand Yeshua’s role. YHWH remains the Suzerain King. Israel and Judah remain the covenant people named in Jeremiah. Yeshua, as YHWH’s appointed Messiah and mediator, ratifies the promised renewal of that covenant relationship because he is Israel's king in the line of David, heir to David's throne. That means Israel is coming under new leadership under the suzerain, God Himself. The Torah is not erased. The people are not replaced. The covenant is brought forward under the authority of the Suzerain through His chosen representative and Israel's King, the heir of David, who will sit on the thone of David when he returns to earth.
I also understand the “all” in Jeremiah 31 within the context of the covenant people being addressed. Jeremiah says the covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, so when the text says “they shall all know Me,” I read that as “all” within the restored covenant people, from the least to the greatest, in Israel. I would not read it as every individual human being on the planet at that point in history. The scope is governed by the covenant parties named in the passage, God and the houses of Israel and Judah.
So, for me, the fact that teaching still continues does not prove Jeremiah 31 is unrelated to Yeshua’s words. It shows that the covenant has been ratified and inaugurated, but its full visible completion has not yet arrived. Yeshua has not returned to earth to sit upon the throne of David over Israel. Scripture often works this way. A covenant can be established before every promise attached to it reaches final fulfillment.
I would also be cautious about pressing the marriage imagery too literally. I agree that Scripture uses marriage language for YHWH and Israel, and that language is powerful. It shows the depth of covenant loyalty, Israel’s unfaithfulness, YHWH’s faithfulness, betrayal through idolatry, and the grief of broken covenant relationship. But I would treat marriage, adultery, and divorce as covenant metaphors rather than as a literal marriage/divorce/remarriage mechanism governed in a wooden way by human marriage law.
The metaphor reveals the seriousness of Israel’s breach and the depth of YHWH’s covenant faithfulness. But I do not think we need to conclude that Yeshua personally married Israel at Sinai or that his death was required so he could legally remarry Israel. I would instead say Yeshua’s death ratifies the promised covenant renewal as the obedient mediator appointed by YHWH if one studies the hierarchy of kingdoms, suzerains, vassels, and covenants.
So where I agree with you is this: Jeremiah 31 is Israel-centered, Torah is not abolished, and the covenant cannot be detached from the prophets.
Where I differ is this: I do believe Yeshua was referring to Jeremiah 31 at the cup. I see his blood as the ratifying blood of that promised covenant renewal, not as a different covenant from Jeremiah’s prophecy.
To put it simply: the covenant is “new” because Israel’s covenant relationship is being restored under transformed conditions of forgiven iniquity, internalized Torah, reunited houses, renewed loyalty, and a new leadership under God. But it is not “new” in the sense of replacing Israel, abolishing Torah, or creating a separate Gentile institution. It is the promised restoration of the covenant people under the authority of YHWH, ratified through His appointed Messiah, the heir of David, the annointed one.
If you would like, I can address each of your points in the article in full where I agree and disagree, but thought maybe I would start with this.
Again, thank you for sharing it with me.
Shalom Alyson. I appreciate your providing your position on what I wrote; it adds to the conversation. I would like to submit my latest on this in Part II: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/the-new-covenant-part-ii
John, thank you again for the thoughtful dialogue. I do appreciate your willingness to step outside many accepted doctrinal assumptions and return the discussion to Scripture, Torah, the prophets, and Israel’s covenant context. That is where I think we have some meaningful agreement.
Where my framework differs is that I try to stay very tightly within the Ancient Near Eastern and Hebraic covenant worldview, without importing later doctrinal or cultural definitions back into the text.
So while I agree that the renewed covenant is not a detached “church” covenant and that Torah is not abolished within Israel’s covenant framework, I would also state my position this way: the renewed covenant of Jeremiah 31 is specifically with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It is Israel’s covenant renewal. It is not made with the nations as nations, and I do not see Torah as the covenant law code assigned to the nations.
Yeshua’s role, in my framework, is Israel’s Messiah as the appointed Son, heir, mediator, and royal representative whom God raised, vindicated, and gave authority over the nations. Through him, Israel’s covenant renewal is ratified, and the nations receive blessing under his God-given authority. But that does not make the renewed covenant itself a Gentile covenant or a universal Torah covenant for all nations.
I also differ strongly on the marriage framework. I agree that Scripture uses marriage language for YHWH and Israel. That imagery is powerful. It shows covenant loyalty, betrayal, faithfulness, grief, and restoration. But I understand that as metaphor, not as a literal legal marriage mechanism.
In the ANE worldview, sovereign covenants and kingship treaties were not treated as actual marriages. Marriage language could be used relationally and poetically to describe the depth of loyalty between a king and his people, or between YHWH and Israel, but the covenant itself remained a kingship/suzerain covenant. So I would not apply human marriage law mechanically to YHWH and Israel, nor would I build a literal divorce/remarriage legal argument from what Scripture presents as covenant metaphor.
That is actually one of the places where I think we part ways most clearly. You are trying to move away from inherited church doctrines, and I respect that. But from my perspective, pressing the marriage metaphor into a literal legal structure still risks reading the text through a later or foreign framework rather than the ANE covenant worldview in which the prophets and hearers operated.
So I would summarize my position this way:
Jeremiah 31 is Israel’s covenant renewal, not a replacement covenant and not a covenant for the nations. Yeshua, as Israel’s appointed Messiah and mediator, ratifies that renewal under the authority of YHWH. The nations are blessed through his authority and through the Abrahamic promise, but they are not made parties to Jeremiah’s renewed covenant in the same way Israel and Judah are. And the marriage imagery should remain metaphorical, serving the larger kingship covenant framework rather than replacing it.
I do appreciate the discussion, though. I think we agree that later inherited doctrines need to be examined carefully. My own approach is simply to strip the framework back even further, all the way back to the ANE worldview, the Hebraic covenant structure, and the categories the biblical authors and original hearers would have understood.
Thank you for adding to the conversation; not everyone does. Others can read our dialog and arrive at their own conclusions after examining the evidence. That should be what we all do. I am 100% sure that I am not 100% correct in anything! I have things to learn and will until my final breath. I will continue exploring and analyzing what I find. I will admit that I still hold to what I wrote in both articles about the New Covenant. Shalom!
Thank you for the respectful dialogue. I truly appreciated it.
My position is that everyone must study and use the framework they believe is for them. Mine is that I do not use any later doctrinal or theological overlay at all. I study through the framework of the original worldview of the authors and how their audience would have understood their words in their time and culture.
Again, thank you!
Hi Alyson, I relate most closely to your take on this discussion. While the guys are jousting and threatening in testosterone, I'm reading their substance thoroughly. Gregory's list of laws in some ways does seem doable to me since I was raised with a Seventh Day Adventist father, but I do not feel at home in the Jewish framework. I don't like the reinterpretation of denominational churches as to not following the law at all, however. I believe it is not for salvation, but for the welfare of the whole community, and because it reflects personally on our God and his ownership of his people, our allegiance to him.
Heretics Anonymous brought forward another argument of the new church leaders' decision from Acts 21:19-26 TLV, that they only require the Gentiles not to eat blood, not be immoral and not eat food sacrificed to idols. Of course, that seems much easier, and for me, I can aim for something like this. However, is it meant as the definitive version of the Torah for us to observe today?
I guess with all the Torah obedience stuff thrown on the table and me believing that Yeshua-Jesus Christ actually expanded the covenant to include the Gentiles through his extravagant grace via his work on Calvary, that I am really searching to know and obey God in the design he has for us wild branches.
Can you please explain what ANE worldview is?
Laura, thank you for such a thoughtful response. I appreciate the way you are trying to sort through the substance without getting pulled into the jousting. That is where I try to stay too, though I admit I sometimes have to take a deep breath first.
I agree with you that Torah is very useful for study, wisdom, and even the welfare of a community. Torah is deeply community-oriented. It teaches justice, care for the poor, honest judgment, protection of the vulnerable, sexual boundaries, restitution, responsibility, reverence for God, and loyalty to the covenant order He established with Israel. It also reflects personally on God because Torah was given to His chosen nation as their covenant instruction. So I would never treat Torah as something dirty, failed, or worthy of mockery as some have. It is holy instruction given to a holy people, and I will honor it as such.
Where I make a distinction is between Torah as Israel’s covenant law code and Torah as a witness to God’s moral order and wisdom.
I do not believe the nations are under Sinai Torah as Israel is. Jeremiah 31 names the parties of the renewed covenant: the house of Israel and the house of Judah. That covenant renewal belongs to Israel. Yeshua is Israel’s Messiah, appointed by God and given authority over the nations by God. Through him, the nations receive blessing, mercy, and accountability under God’s appointed king, but that does not mean Gentiles become Israel or that the nations are placed under Torah as Israel’s covenant law code.
That is where Acts 15 and Acts 21 are important. The apostles did not require Gentiles to become Jews or take on Torah as Israel’s national covenant identity. The instructions given to Gentiles, abstaining from idolatry, blood, strangled things, and sexual immorality, seem to address basic boundaries for Gentiles turning from idolatry to the God of Israel and entering fellowship with Jewish believers. Again, entering fellowship, not Israel or Torah. I would not call that a “Gentile Torah,” but I would call it an apostolic ruling for Gentile table fellowship in the Jewish community in the land, and allegiance to God Himself and His Son.
So no, I do not think Acts 15 is giving Gentiles a miniature Torah or the full definitive moral list for all time. Gentiles are still accountable to God’s universal moral order. Murder, idolatry, sexual immorality, oppression, theft, bloodshed, and injustice are wrong for all people, not only Israel. But the nations are not under Torah in the same covenantal way Israel is. The universal moral law is contained within Torah because Israel is also under the same Creator and King as the nations, but Torah as a whole was given specifically to Israel as Israel’s covenant instruction especially as stewards in the land. Think of it like this. In a kingdom, a group stewards where the king dwells (typically called the royal house, compound, etc.) and they live by stricter law given by the king than those who live further out in the kingdom. They are under the universal kingdom laws, but also under the more definitive laws where they steward for the king as he chooses. Israel is the steward in the land that God chose in covenant with Abraham. And even within the land, Torah differs for each part of Israel as a people depending on where they live and serve within the land. One of the best ways to understand universal law is to look at the Ten Commandments. All of them are universal. Now the fourth one, Remember the Sabbath, is not as Torah commands Israel, but God saying that He sanctified and blessed the day He sat on the throne and we should remember and honor that day by recognizing Him as King. Not like literally every Saturday, but the day after creation that God sat on His throne when He was done establishing His Kingdom on earth. For Israel, it became a sign of the covenant between God and Israel, and they are to honor it in a different way than the nations to show that God is King as stewards in the land and to show that He brought them out of Eygpt. That’s a whole other point, too long for this comment right now.
As for ANE worldview, that means “Ancient Near Eastern worldview.” It is the cultural, historical, legal, and religious world in which the biblical authors lived and wrote. So instead of beginning with later church doctrines, denominational categories, or modern assumptions, I try to ask: How would the original author and audience have understood this? What did covenant, king, land, temple, priesthood, law, inheritance, exile, sonship, and nations mean in their world?
For example, in the ANE world, covenants were often kingship/suzerain agreements. A great king gave terms to a people or lesser king. That helps me understand Torah as Israel’s covenant instruction under YHWH as their Great King. It also helps me understand Yeshua as Israel’s appointed Messiah, the royal son and mediator through whom God advances His kingdom purposes and extends authority over the nations.
That framework helps me keep the categories distinct: Israel is Israel, the nations are the nations, Torah is Israel’s covenant law, and the nations are invited into blessing and allegiance under God’s appointed king without being turned into Israel under the universal law of God’s universal Kingdom.
So I agree with you that Torah is valuable, beautiful, and deeply useful. I do not say Gentiles are under Torah as their covenant code. I would say Gentiles are under the authority of God, the Great King of the Universe. and His appointed Messiah, King over Israel under God, given authority over the nations, accountable to His universal moral order, and invited to learn from Torah as a witness to His justice and wisdom.
Alyson, I deeply resonate with the Torah as the witness to God’s law! This makes so much sense to me. I’ve read it that way my whole life but have recently become confused the more I got into creating and using the verse-by-verse teachings of the Psalms into modern music for believers to use for meditation, praise, and worship. At first, they ministered to me through history and the psychology of these lyrics written by someone in David’s courts or by his musicians or by Moses or Solomon. But fellow Christians resent the inclusion of the psalmists’ terminology about wicked people, evil doers, supplicants pleading for God’s vengeance and favor, and the continued mentioning of law, precepts, statutes, and testimonies. I’m a paralegal, so I understand the framework of these words in our courts and jurisdiction, but what did they specifically refer to in scripture?
The more I studied precepts, statutes, testimonies, the covenant, and that the new covenant is applicable only to Israel and Judea, the more I needed to reorganize my own faith and understanding of scripture application to me and those like me. That brought me to Baptism and then Communion.
How do you understand the Passover Meal, (Last Supper) whether it was friends gathered together before the official meal, i.e. possibly the Apostle John’s remembering?
Also, what work did Christ do in his death?
Atonement?
Expand the covenant to include the nations as to the benefits of God, but not held to the Torah laws?
Are God’s laws written on our hearts now, after Yeshua’s work, or is that aspect still coming in the new heaven and earth? I definitely know that all but Machiavellian narcissists have a guiding conscience, but I don’t believe that is the same thing as God’s laws written on our hearts in the way that he describes everyone knowing God personally.
I’ve subscribed to your Substack, so I am looking forward to reading more.
Laura, thank you for this. I really appreciate the way you are thinking through this carefully, especially with your paralegal background. I think that may actually help you see some of these categories more clearly than many people do, because words like law, testimony, statute, covenant, witness, judgment, and jurisdiction are not vague religious words. They carry legal and covenant weight.
When the Psalms speak of law, precepts, statutes, testimonies, commandments, ordinances, and judgments, they are usually speaking from inside Israel’s covenant world. These are not just “nice moral thoughts.” They are the words and rulings of Israel’s Great King. Torah is Israel’s covenant instruction, but it also bears witness to God’s wisdom, justice, order, mercy, and righteousness. So when the psalmists delight in Torah, they are delighting in the King’s instruction and in the ordered life He gave His covenant people.
That does not mean every line applies to Gentiles in the same covenantal way it applied to Israel. But it does mean the Psalms still teach us what God loves, what He hates, how He judges, how He defends the vulnerable, how He responds to wickedness, and how His people cry out to Him for justice. We must remember that God called Israel to be a holier nation as stewards in the land where He did and will dwell again. So... they are the example of how to live under God which we should emulate, but that does not mean we come under Torah exclusively given to them as examples and stewards.
That is also why the language about the wicked, evildoers, vengeance, judgment, and favor can feel uncomfortable to modern Christians. Many have been taught a very softened vocabulary of worship. But the Psalms are royal, covenantal, legal, emotional, and honest. They teach us that God’s kingdom is not sentimental. It is righteous. He does not merely comfort the wounded; He also judges oppression, violence, deceit, and rebellion.
On the Passover/Last Supper question, I would hold it carefully. I do think Yeshua’s death belongs in the Passover framework. Yeshua is taking the bread and cup and placing his own death inside Israel’s covenant story of deliverance, blood, exodus, and restoration. The argument of whether it was a Passover meal or not is a circular one that many continue in. Me, Yeshua did participate in the Passover, but not the meal, as the Passover lamb. I have some articles on this subject. Here is one...
https://fromthegardengate.substack.com/p/beginning-with-the-empty-tomb
And I'm going to write some others in the future.
Also, I do not think he was inventing a detached Christian ritual out of nowhere. He was giving covenant meaning to what was about to happen to him. His death would become the blood-ratification moment of the promised covenant renewal, tied to Israel’s restoration, and through him the nations would also receive blessing.
As for what Yeshua’s death accomplished, I would say several things.
Yes, atonement is part of it. His death deals with sin, guilt, and estrangement. But I would not reduce his death only to a courtroom transaction. His death also ratifies covenant renewal, vindicates his faithful obedience, opens the way for Israel’s restoration, defeats the power of death through resurrection, and establishes him as the appointed mediator through whom God extends mercy and authority to the nations.
I would say Yeshua’s work brings the nations into the benefits of God’s promise through Abraham and through Israel’s Messiah, but not by placing the nations under Torah as Israel’s covenant law code. The nations, already under the authority of God universally as the Great King, are brought under the authority of God’s appointed King of Israel on earth. They receive mercy, forgiveness, resurrection hope, and choose allegiance to the God through Yeshua. But they do not become Israel, and they are not required to take on Israel’s Torah jurisdiction.
On the law written on the heart, I would distinguish conscience from Jeremiah 31.
I do believe all humanity has some moral awareness because all humanity belongs to God as Creator. Paul’s language in Romans 2 suggests that Gentiles can show the work of the law written in some sense through conscience. But I do not think that is the same thing as Jeremiah 31. If we look back before Torah, many of the nations and whole nations, even all humanity except Noah and family, were judged under a universal law which Torah contains because Israel is also under the same universal law, but, again, that doesn't make Torah itself over the nations.
Jeremiah 31 is specifically about the renewed covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. That promise includes God writing Torah on the heart, forgiving iniquity, and a future state where all within that restored covenant people know Him. Ezekiel 36 gives similar restoration language: new heart, new spirit, cleansed from idols, restored to the land, and caused to walk in God’s statutes.
So I would say that full Jeremiah 31 reality is not completely here yet. It has been inaugurated through Yeshua, but not fully consummated. We still teach. We still wrestle. We still misunderstand. We still repent. That tells me the fullness of “they shall all know Me” is still ahead.
For Gentiles, I would not say Torah is written on our hearts in the Jeremiah 31 sense, because Jeremiah names Israel and Judah. But I would say Gentiles who God’s appointed Messiah is placed in authority over are called into allegiance, receive God’s mercy, are shaped by His Spirit, and learn His wisdom and justice through Scripture. We are not lawless. We are accountable to God’s universal moral order and to the authority He gave Yeshua.
So, in simple form:
Torah is Israel’s covenant instruction.
The Psalms teach us God’s justice, wisdom, judgment, mercy, and covenant faithfulness.
Yeshua’s death deals with exile and sin, and ratifies the path of restoration.
The nations receive blessing through Israel’s Messiah without becoming Israel or coming under Torah as Israel.
Jeremiah 31’s full heart-written-Torah reality belongs to Israel’s restoration and is not fully complete yet.
Gentiles are still called to faithful allegiance to God and to His appointed Son.
I am so glad you subscribed, and I really appreciate your thoughtful questions. These are exactly the kinds of questions that help us slow down and rebuild our understanding carefully rather than just inheriting categories that may not fit the text.
You’ve spent a lot of time typing out a long-winded, Hebrew-flavored funeral for the Grace of God, and I’m going to tell you exactly where you jumped the track.
1. You’re Worshipping a Vowel You Can't See
You want to play "Interchangeable Hebrew" with chadash. You admit the text says "New," but then you dive into the "no vowels in the original" routine to try and force "Renewed" into the verse. Friend, that’s a con game.
The Holy Ghost settled that "opinion" of yours in Hebrews 8:13. He said, "In that he saith, A NEW covenant, he hath made the first OLD." If it’s just "renewed," then the first isn't old: it’s just got a fresh coat of paint! You’re calling the Writer of Hebrews a liar because he didn't use your preferred "re-tread" definition.
2. The "Hebrew Conversation" Hoax
You say those Jewish men weren't speaking Greek at the table. How do you know? Greek was the lingua franca of the day. But even if they were speaking Swahili, the Bible was written in Greek! When you say the choice of kainos was someone’s "opinion" to "inject a predetermined conclusion," you are attacking Inspiration. You’re saying God the Holy Spirit was too weak to make sure the right word got onto the parchment. If I have to choose between a Greek manuscript preserved for 2,000 years and your "leaning toward" a different word, I’m picking the Book every time.
3. You’re Trying to Marry a Corpse
You’re obsessed with the "Law of the Marriage" in Deuteronomy 24 and Romans 7. You say Yeshua had to die so He could "remarry" Israel.
Listen, son, Romans 7:4 says:
"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another..." We aren't "re-marrying" the Law! We are married to a Risen Christ. You want the Church to be a "re-grafted" appendage to a national covenant that belongs to the Jews in the Millennium. You’re trying to put a tuxedo on a man who’s already been resurrected and tell him he’s still bound to his first wife’s kitchen rules.
4. The "Lawlessness" Scare Tactics
You quote Matthew 7:23 about "workers of lawlessness" to scare people into keeping the Torah. You think "Lawlessness" means "Not keeping the 613 laws of Moses."
If that’s true, then Paul is the biggest 'worker of lawlessness' in history! He’s the one who said, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" (Romans 10:4). "Lawlessness" isn't failing to keep the Sabbath; it's rejecting the Authority of God. And the biggest act of lawlessness a man can commit is trying to pay for his seat at the Wedding Supper with his own "filthy rag" works of the Law.
My Advice to You:
Put down the Hebrew lexicon and pick up the Book. Stop trying to turn the "Great Commission" into a "Torah Training Seminar." We aren't "native branches" or "wild branches" trying to find a synagogue; we are the Body of Christ, and our citizenship is in Heaven, not in a "one-stick" earthly kingdom that hasn't started yet.
You’re so worried about people "playing church" that you’ve started "playing Pharisee." You want a "Renewed" covenant because you’re scared of a New one that leaves your self-righteousness in the dirt.
Gregory, Gregory, Gregory, do you not see the very contradiction in your very first point? You are assuming that the translators got it right. You see “New” in your English text as trust that is the correct translation. You may even look behind that to Greek and see “New,” and say it is settled. Do you not know that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew? Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, wrote that Matthew was written in Hebrew and many came and did their best to translate it. He didn’t sound 100% confident in their work. There are many Hebrew copies of Mathew that are not translations from Greek. Go do a little homework on that (there are also other native, not translations from Greek, Hebrew NT texts).
As to your second point, the “Hebrew Conversation” Hoax. No matter what you want to say, it was a bunch of Hebrews sitting around the table, not Romans, not Greeks; they were Hebrews, mostly from the tribe of Judah, but also Benjamin and Levi. They kept their heritage. They probably spoke the common languages in public but in private I strongly believe they reverted to their native tongue. You can easily see that in the world today if you but look. I live in Texas and have many Hispanic people around me. They can speak English, and do around me, but when they are amongst their own, they revert to Spanish. This is nothing new. Quit trying to make them into Greeks/Romans. This has always been a Hebrew story!
Marry a Corpse? Are you not expecting to be at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Are you not expecting a marriage? The church is not the bride; never has been, never will be. The bride is, and always will be, Israel. Read Romans 11. Who is grafted into who? Believers are grafted into Israel. That is what it says. You really do not understand what is coming. Tear that page that says “New Testament” out of your Bible and read it as one story, because it is.
Romans 7:4 could be restated as “But Paul…” The very much misunderstood Paul. Peter promised that we would misunderstand him, and you are proving Peter to be correct. If you ever see Paul contradicting the OT, Yeshua, or YHVH, you misunderstand Paul. It is that simple. You would be wise to consider my Bible reading plan and get things into their proper order. https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan
Lawlessness is not a scare tactic. If you want to ignore the Law, be prepared to be called “Least in the Kingdom of Heaven.” Those are Yeshua’s words, Read Matthew 5. More of Yeshua’s words, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” The Lawless are those that discard the instructions of Yah, His Torah. Satan is called the lawless one. The Greco-Roman church has thrown out the law, so it is lawless. Not good company to keep!
That was a very nice try. You do regurgitate the Greco-Roman church doctrine very well, as I once did. Yeshua said, “Satan deceives the whole world.” You believe that to be everyone one but you and your denomination. I don’t think that is going to work out well. Let me leave you with some words from Paul: “Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
Don’t love the truth? God Himself sends a powerful delusion for they delight in wickedness. Wickedness is violating Yah’s instructions, His Torah; you do not get to define that! Paul wrote that in the New Testament!
I have done my job as an Ezekiel 33 watchman. I have sounded the shofar and warned of the approaching danger. Whatever happens to you is on your head. Hopefully this helps someone come out of Babylon (The western, Greco-Roman church).
All 613?
I can’t believe you’re serious.
You are actually standing there telling people they have got to keep the "commandments"? Which ones?
All 613 of them?
You better hope your "Hebrew roots" are deep enough to handle the weight of the whole tree, because James 2:10 says:
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."
That means if you manage to keep 612 of those statutes but you accidentally wear a wool-poly blend sock or eat a piece of catfish, you are just as much a lawbreaker as a murderer!
You are as guilty as the Devil himself in the eyes of a Holy God.
You cannot treat the Bible like a cafeteria line where you pick the "Sabbath" and the "Feasts" but leave the Levitical sacrifices and the stoning of rebels in the pan.
You want Moses?
You get the whole man, whiskers and all!
That means no more shrimp cocktails.
No more cheeseburgers. No more mixed fabrics. And you better have a backyard full of turtledoves ready for every time you have a "lawless" thought, because the Law does not grade on a curve!
You think you are "honoring God" by going back to the Torah?
Paul called that Law the "ministration of death" in 2 Corinthians 3:7.
It was not given to make you holy; it was given to kill you!
Its only job is to show you that you are a failure and that you need Christ’s righteousness.
Yours is nothing but "filthy rags."
If salvation depended on you keeping those 613 laws, you would not last until breakfast without earning a trip to Hell.
The Law is a mirror to show you your dirty face, not a bar of soap to wash it with.
So go ahead, "Watchman," saddle up for Moses.
But I am warning you: it is not just a "bumpy ride."
It is a head-on collision with the Justice of God, and you are driving a car with no brakes and a lead foot.
Gravity doesn’t negotiate and neither does the Justice of God Almighty.
I will stay in the City of Refuge under the Blood. You can stay out in the desert with a dead man named Moses.
Amen? Amen!
Short answer: Yes. Keep the Law, God's Torah.
Long answer: I would challenge you to even enumerate the 613 Laws that you are so adamant that you must not keep. You might accidently keep one; what then? Not one person was ever expected to keep every Law. Does that surprise you? Some were only for men; others only for women. That immediately eliminates some. Some only for farmers, that eliminates more for people that are not farmers. Others are only for Levites, and some only for Priests, descendants of Aaron; that eliminates many more that most of us do not have to keep; they don't apply to us. Many of those are only applicable if there is a Temple or Tabernacle and a functioning Levitical Priesthood; neither of those apply at the current time. You will only be held to account for those that you can keep, not for what you can't. Now it is a matter of will. Will you choose to obey that which you can? I choose to obey.
You don't even realize that the bacon, catfish, and shrimp cocktail, etc. that you love are the result of the curses of Leviticus 26; curses for not being obedient to Torah. They bring parasites and cause disease. Just look around at how healthy the average American is, how many pharmaceuticals many are on just to mitigate the symptoms. Cancer is caused by parasites (look it up). We would eliminate a lot of disease if we ate Biblically clean, as God commanded. But go ahead, worship the idol of your belly, have that BLT and Easter Ham! I gave up Biblically unclean food when I learned that was what we are required to do. It is not easy because unclean food is everywhere. In fact, unclean food is not even food! Go read Leviticus 11, unless you have already torn it from your Bible.
I do strive very hard to not wear mixed fabrics. I look primarily for 100% cotton clothing. It is hard to find, not impossible. I might still have a few stragglers in my closed but as I find them, I am discarding them.
I also wear tassels, tzitzit, on my clothing as commanded. It is very obvious. We are supposed to be "a peculiar people." We are not supposed to look like the world around us, the fallen world. We should be considered weird by not eating as they do, not dressing as they do, not resting as they do (keeping Shabbat and the other High Holy Days.) Do you look weird or do you just blend in with the multitude on the wide road that leads to destruction that many (most) will find?
Allow me to show you some of the times that you blaspheme Yehovah with your beliefs:
1. Deuteronomy 30:11, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." He is speaking of His Law, His Torah, His instructions on how we are to live. He said it is not too difficult, that you can do it, but you say it is impossible. Go ahead call Him a liar.
2. Malachi 3:6-7, "I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you." He says that He does not change. You say that you turn the page to Matthew and every thing changed, that He changed. Call Him a liar; go ahead!
3. Matthew 5:17-19, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Those are Yeshua's words. Yeshua and the Father are one (John 10:30). He said don't even think that He would abolish Torah; don't even think it! This is only a few pages after Malachi 3:6-7 in you Bible. He has told you twice that it won't change; but you say it all changed. Again, call Him a liar! You keep doing it.
4. Luke 1:5-6, "In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly." Two mortal human beings being called "blameless" in God's commands. These are Levites, more specifically descendants of Aaron. The requirements of the Law were much higher on them, but God considered them blameless. You say it is impossible to keep the Law; they did. God said they did and were called blameless. Go ahead call Him a liar yet again!
Enough of that. I am tired of you calling my God a liar. Quit blaspheming Him!
You are looking for any way possible to be disobedient. That doesn't end well.
Consider Romans 15:4, "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope." The only Scriptures that they had, what he was referring to, was what you call the Old Testament. That was for your instruction, to teach you. That includes Torah. Have you torn that part out of your Bible yet? If you consider it all worthless, why do you keep it in the book, just to add heft?
Keep on with what you believe, keep calling Yehovah a liar and I am afraid that you are in danger of hearing, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’" (Matthew 7:21-23) Lawlessness means those who are without Torah; those who forsook the Torah.
Hear the sound of the Shofar!! Repent!
To carry out the laws of "Cherem" (devoted property)—Leviticus 27:28
Not to sell "Cherem" property—Leviticus 27:28
Not to redeem "Cherem" property—Leviticus 27:28
Not to sow mixed seeds—Leviticus 19:19
Not to sow mixed seeds in a vineyard—Deuteronomy 22:9
Not to mate different species of animals—Leviticus 19:19
Not to work with different species of animals yoked together—Deuteronomy 22:10
Not to wear "Sha'atnez" (wool and linen together)—Deuteronomy 22:11
To leave the corner of the field (Peah) for the poor—Leviticus 19:9
Not to harvest Peah completely—Leviticus 19:9
To leave gleanings (Leket) for the poor—Leviticus 19:9
Not to gather Leket—Leviticus 19:9
To leave the individual fallen grapes (Peret)—Leviticus 19:10
Not to gather Peret—Leviticus 19:10
To leave the unformed grape clusters (Oleloth)—Leviticus 19:10
Not to gather Oleloth—Leviticus 19:10
To leave forgotten sheaves (Shich'chah)—Deuteronomy 24:19
Not to go back to take forgotten sheaves—Deuteronomy 24:19
To set aside the "Poor Man's Tithe"—Deuteronomy 14:28
To give Charity (Tzedakah)—Deuteronomy 15:8
Not to withhold charity from the poor—Deuteronomy 15:7
To set aside the "Terumah Gedolah" (for the Priest)—Deuteronomy 18:4
The Levite must set aside a tithe of his tithe—Numbers 18:26
Not to eat the tithe (Ma'aser Sheni) outside Jerusalem—Deuteronomy 12:17
Not to eat the Second Tithe of wine outside Jerusalem—Deuteronomy 12:17
Not to eat the Second Tithe of oil outside Jerusalem—Deuteronomy 12:17
The Levites must have no portion in the land—Deuteronomy 18:1
The Levites must have no share in the spoils of war—Deuteronomy 18:1
To give the Priest his share of the shoulder, cheeks, and stomach—Deuteronomy 18:3
To set aside the "First Shearing" for the Priest—Deuteronomy 18:4
To carry out the laws of the "Red Heifer"—Numbers 19:2
To carry out the laws of "Ritual Impurity" from the dead—Numbers 19:14
To carry out the laws of the "Water of Purification"—Numbers 19:21
To carry out the laws of "Leprosy" (Tzara'at) in people—Leviticus 13:2
The leper must not remove signs of impurity—Deuteronomy 24:8
The leper must not shave the signs of impurity—Leviticus 13:33
The leper must publicize his condition—Leviticus 13:45
To carry out the laws of leprosy in garments—Leviticus 13:47
To carry out the laws of leprosy in houses—Leviticus 14:34
To carry out the laws of a "Zav" (man with a discharge)—Leviticus 15:2
To carry out the laws of a "Zavah" (woman with a discharge)—Leviticus 15:25
To carry out the laws of a menstruant—Leviticus 15:19
To carry out the laws of a woman after childbirth—Leviticus 12:2
To carry out the laws of a "Ba'al Keri" (nocturnal emission)—Leviticus 15:16
To carry out the laws of impurity of animal carcasses—Leviticus 11:39
To carry out the laws of impurity of creeping things—Leviticus 11:29
To immerse in a Mikvah for purification—Leviticus 15:16
The court must carry out the laws of "Capital Punishment"—Exodus 21:12
Now, I’ve only given you about half of 'em here, but that should be enough to make your head spin! You want to talk about "Torah observance"? You better be ready to find a Red Heifer and a Priest from the line of Aaron, because without them, about half of this list is impossible to keep, which makes you a lawbreaker by default!
Still want to "saddle up for Moses," son? Or are you ready to admit you need the Blood of Jesus Christ? Amen? Amen!
e's sister—Leviticus 18:18
A man must not have relations with a beast—Leviticus 18:23
A woman must not have relations with a beast—Leviticus 18:23
A man must not have relations with another man—Leviticus 18:22
Not to have relations with one's father—Leviticus 18:7
Not to have relations with one's father's brother—Leviticus 18:14
Not to have relations with another man's wife—Leviticus 18:20
Not to have relations with a menstruating woman—Leviticus 18:19
Not to marry non-Jews—Deuteronomy 7:3
Not to let a Moabite or Ammonite male enter the assembly—Deuteronomy 23:4
Not to exclude 3rd generation Edomite converts—Deuteronomy 23:8
Not to exclude 3rd generation Egyptian converts—Deuteronomy 23:8
Not to let a Mamzer (illegitimate child) marry a Jew—Deuteronomy 23:3
Not to let a eunuch marry a Jew—Deuteronomy 23:2
Not to castrate any male (including animals)—Leviticus 22:24
The High Priest must not marry a widow—Leviticus 21:14
The High Priest must not have relations with a widow—Leviticus 21:15
The High Priest must marry a virgin—Leviticus 21:13
A Priest (Kohen) must not marry a divorcee—Leviticus 21:7
A Priest must not marry a "Zonah" (harlot)—Leviticus 21:7
A Priest must not marry a "Challalah" (profaned woman)—Leviticus 21:7
Not to come close to any forbidden relations—Leviticus 18:6
To examine animal signs for kashrut (dietary laws)—Leviticus 11:2
Not to eat non-kosher animals—Leviticus 11:4
To examine bird signs for kashrut—Deuteronomy 14:11
Not to eat non-kosher birds—Leviticus 11:13
To examine fish signs for kashrut—Leviticus 11:9
Not to eat non-kosher fish—Leviticus 11:11
To examine locust signs for kashrut—Leviticus 11:21
Not to eat non-kosher insects—Leviticus 11:41
Not to eat insects of the fruit—Leviticus 11:41
Not to eat tiny creatures of the water—Leviticus 11:43
Not to eat creatures that crawl on the ground—Leviticus 11:44
Not to eat a "Nevelah" (animal that died on its own)—Deuteronomy 14:21
Not to eat a "Terefah" (fatally wounded animal)—Exodus 22:30
Not to eat a limb severed from a living animal—Deuteronomy 12:23
Not to eat the "Gid HaNasheh" (sciatic nerve)—Genesis 32:33
Not to eat blood—Leviticus 7:26
Not to eat certain animal fats (Chelev)—Leviticus 7:23
Not to cook meat and milk together—Exodus 23:19
Not to eat meat and milk cooked together—Exodus 34:26
Not to eat the flesh of a stoned ox—Exodus 21:28
Not to eat bread from the new grain before the Omer—Leviticus 23:14
Not to eat parched grain before the Omer—Leviticus 23:14
Not to eat ripened grain before the Omer—Leviticus 23:14
Not to eat "Orlah" (fruit from first 3 years of tree)—Leviticus 19:23
Not to eat "Kilayim" (mixed seeds in a vineyard)—Deuteronomy 22:9
Not to drink wine used for idolatry—Deuteronomy 32:38
Not to be a glutton or a drunkard—Leviticus 19:26
To fast on Yom Kippur—Leviticus 23:27
Not to eat or drink on Yom Kippur—Leviticus 23:29
A Nazir must not drink wine—Numbers 6:3
A Nazir must not eat fresh grapes—Numbers 6:3
A Nazir must not eat dried grapes (raisins)—Numbers 6:3
A Nazir must not eat grape seeds—Numbers 6:4
A Nazir must not eat grape skins—Numbers 6:4
A Nazir must not cut his hair—Numbers 6:5
A Nazir must not be under the same roof as a corpse—Numbers 6:6
A Nazir must not come into contact with the dead—Numbers 6:7
To shave after finishing the Nazir period—Numbers 6:9
To estimate the value of people for a vow—Leviticus 27:2
To estimate the value of animals for a vow—Leviticus 27:9
To estimate the value of houses for a vow—Leviticus 27:14
To estimate the value of fields for a vow—Leviticus 27:16
III. Temple, Priesthood & Sacrifices
(Note: Since the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., these are physically impossible to keep today. That hasn't stopped the "Torah-Keepers" from pretending, though!)
To repent and confess wrongdoings—Numbers 5:7
To say the Shema twice daily—Deuteronomy 6:7
To serve God with prayer daily—Exodus 23:25
The Priests (Kohanim) must bless the nation daily—Numbers 6:23
To wear Tefillin on the head—Deuteronomy 6:8
To bind Tefillin on the arm—Deuteronomy 6:8
To put a Mezuzah on each doorpost—Deuteronomy 6:9
Each male must write a Sefer Torah—Deuteronomy 31:19
The King must write a separate Sefer Torah—Deuteronomy 17:18
To have Tzitzit on four-cornered garments—Numbers 15:38
To bless God after eating—Deuteronomy 8:10
To circumcise all males on the 8th day—Leviticus 12:3
To rest on the Sabbath—Exodus 23:12
Not to do prohibited labor on Sabbath—Exodus 20:10
The court must not punish on Sabbath—Exodus 35:3
Not to walk more than 2000 cubits on Sabbath—Exodus 16:29
To sanctify the day with Kiddush and Havdalah—Exodus 20:8
To rest on Yom Kippur—Leviticus 23:32
Not to work on Yom Kippur—Leviticus 23:31
To afflict yourself (fast) on Yom Kippur—Leviticus 16:29
Not to eat or drink on Yom Kippur—Leviticus 23:29
To rest on the 1st day of Passover—Leviticus 23:7
Not to work on the 1st day of Passover—Leviticus 23:8
To rest on the 7th day of Passover—Leviticus 23:8
Not to work on the 7th day of Passover—Leviticus 23:8
To rest on Shavuot—Leviticus 23:21
Not to work on Shavuot—Leviticus 23:21
To rest on Rosh Hashanah—Leviticus 23:24
Not to work on Rosh Hashanah—Leviticus 23:25
To rest on Sukkot—Leviticus 23:35
Not to work on Sukkot—Leviticus 23:35
To rest on Shemini Atzeret—Leviticus 23:36
Not to work on Shemini Atzeret—Leviticus 23:36
Not to eat Chametz on afternoon of 14th Nissan—Deuteronomy 16:3
To destroy all Chametz on 14th Nissan—Exodus 12:15
Not to eat Chametz all 7 days of Passover—Exodus 13:3
Not to eat mixtures with Chametz during Passover—Exodus 12:20
Chametz should not be seen in your domain—Exodus 13:7
Chametz should not be found in your domain—Exodus 12:19
To eat Matzah on the first night of Passover—Exodus 12:18
To relate the Exodus that night—Exodus 13:8
To hear the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah—Numbers 29:1
To dwell in a Sukkah for 7 days—Leviticus 23:42
To take up a Lulav and Etrog—Leviticus 23:40
To give a half-shekel annually—Exodus 30:13
Courts must determine the new month—Exodus 12:2
To cry out to God in times of catastrophe—Numbers 10:9
To marry a wife via Kiddushin—Deuteronomy 24:1
Not to have relations with women not married this way—Deuteronomy 23:18
Not to withhold food, clothing, or relations from a wife—Exodus 21:10
To have children—Genesis 1:28
To issue a divorce via a "Get"—Deuteronomy 24:1
A man must not remarry his ex-wife after she married another—Deuteronomy 24:4
To perform Yibum (marry brother's childless widow)—Deuteronomy 25:5
To perform Chalitzah (freeing the widow)—Deuteronomy 25:9
A man must not marry the woman he did Chalitzah with—Deuteronomy 25:10
The rapist must marry his victim (if she agrees)—Deuteronomy 22:29
He must never divorce her—Deuteronomy 22:29
The slanderer (of a wife's virginity) must remain married—Deuteronomy 22:19
He must never divorce her—Deuteronomy 22:19
Not to have relations with one's mother—Leviticus 18:7
Not to have relations with one's father's wife—Leviticus 18:8
Not to have relations with one's sister—Leviticus 18:9
Not to have relations with father's wife's daughter—Leviticus 18:11
Not to have relations with son's daughter—Leviticus 18:10
Not to have relations with daughter's daughter—Leviticus 18:10
Not to have relations with one's daughter—Leviticus 18:10
Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter—Leviticus 18:17
Not to have relations with a woman and her son's daughter—Leviticus 18:17
Not to have relations with a woman and her daughter's daughter—Leviticus 18:17
Not to have relations with father's sister—Leviticus 18:12
Not to have relations with mother's sister—Leviticus 18:13
Not to have relations with father's brother's wife—Leviticus 18:14
Not to have relations with son's wife—Leviticus 18:15
Not to have relations with brother's wife—Leviticus 18:16
Not to have relations with wife's sister—Leviticus 18:18
This is the traditional count established by Maimonides. It’s the very "Yoke" that Peter said neither we nor our fathers could bear!
I’ve categorized them so you can see just how deep this swamp goes.
I. The Nature of God & Worship
To know there is a God—Exodus 20:2
Not to entertain thoughts of other gods—Exodus 20:3
To know that He is one—Deuteronomy 6:4
To love Him—Deuteronomy 6:5
To fear Him—Deuteronomy 10:20
To sanctify His Name—Leviticus 22:32
Not to profane His Name—Leviticus 22:32
Not to destroy objects associated with His Name—Deuteronomy 12:4
To listen to the prophet speaking in His Name—Deuteronomy 18:15
Not to test the prophet unduly—Deuteronomy 6:16
II. Idolatry & Forbidden Customs
Not to inquire into idolatry—Leviticus 19:4
Not to follow the whims of your heart or eyes—Numbers 15:39
Not to blaspheme—Exodus 22:27
Not to worship idols in their customary manner—Exodus 20:5
Not to bow down to idols—Exodus 20:5
Not to make an idol for yourself—Exodus 20:4
Not to make an idol for others—Leviticus 19:4
Not to make human forms for decoration—Exodus 20:20
Not to turn a city to idolatry—Exodus 23:13
To burn a city that has turned to idolatry—Deuteronomy 13:17
Not to rebuild that city—Deuteronomy 13:17
Not to derive benefit from that city—Deuteronomy 13:18
Not to missionize an individual to idol worship—Deuteronomy 13:12
Not to love the missionary—Deuteronomy 13:9
Not to cease hating the missionary—Deuteronomy 13:9
Not to save the missionary—Deuteronomy 13:9
Not to speak in his defense—Deuteronomy 13:9
Not to refrain from incriminating him—Deuteronomy 13:9
Not to prophesy in the name of an idol—Deuteronomy 18:20
Not to listen to a false prophet—Deuteronomy 13:4
Not to prophesy falsely in God's Name—Deuteronomy 18:20
Not to be afraid of killing a false prophet—Deuteronomy 18:22
Not to swear in the name of an idol—Exodus 23:13
Not to perform as a medium (Ov)—Leviticus 19:31
Not to perform as a magical seer (Yidoni)—Leviticus 19:31
Not to pass children through fire to Molech—Leviticus 18:21
Not to erect a column for public worship—Deuteronomy 16:22
Not to bow down on smooth stone—Leviticus 26:1
Not to plant a tree in the Temple courtyard—Deuteronomy 16:21
To destroy idols and their accessories—Deuteronomy 12:2
Not to derive benefit from idols—Deuteronomy 7:26
Not to derive benefit from ornaments of idols—Deuteronomy 7:25
Not to make a covenant with idolaters—Deuteronomy 7:2
Not to show favor to them—Deuteronomy 7:2
Not to let them dwell in our land—Exodus 23:33
Not to imitate their customs or clothing—Leviticus 20:23
Not to be superstitious—Leviticus 19:26
Not to go into a trance to foresee events—Deuteronomy 18:10
Not to engage in astrology—Leviticus 19:26
Not to mutter incantations—Deuteronomy 18:11
Not to attempt to contact the dead—Deuteronomy 18:11
Not to consult a medium—Deuteronomy 18:11
Not to consult a magical seer—Deuteronomy 18:11
Not to perform acts of magic—Deuteronomy 18:10
Men must not shave the sides of their head—Leviticus 19:27
Men must not shave beards with a razor—Leviticus 19:27
Men must not wear women's clothing—Deuteronomy 22:5
Women must not wear men's clothing—Deuteronomy 22:5
Not to tattoo the skin—Leviticus 19:28
Not to tear the skin in mourning—Deuteronomy 14:1
Not to make a bald spot in mourning—Deuteronomy 14:1
John, John, John.
Now listen here, "Watchman," I hear that shofar you’re blowing, but it sounds more like a kazoo played by a man who’s lost his way in a Hebrew dictionary! You want to talk about contradictions? You’re standing on a platform made of "lost" manuscripts and "private" conversations that don't exist in the light of day.
Let's look at this "Babylon" you think I'm living in:
1. The "Hebrew Matthew" Mirage
You’re citing Papias and "Hebrew copies" of Matthew. Son, those Shem-Tob manuscripts didn't show up until the 1300s! You’re taking a medieval document and trying to use it to overrule the Textus Receptus. You say Papias wasn't "100% confident"? I don't care if Papias was shaking like a leaf; the Holy Spirit was confident when He preserved the Greek text that shook the world!
If God can't keep His words pure in the language He chose to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles, then He’s not much of a God. You’re basically saying we’ve been "deluded" for 1,900 years until you and your website came along to fix it. That's not "truth," friend. That’s pride.
2. The Spanish-Speaking Apostle?
Your Texas analogy is real cute, but it’s a total wreck. If I speak Spanish at home but write a legal contract in English, the English contract is the law. God chose to write the New Testament in Greek to reach the world. You’re trying to peek through the keyhole of the Upper Room to "strongly believe" in a conversation you didn't hear, while ignoring the written record God put in your hand. You’re trading a "Thus saith the Lord" for a "I reckon they probably said."
3. Paul vs. Your Plan
You say if Paul contradicts your view of the Torah, then I "misunderstand Paul." No, sir. If Paul says we are "not under the law, but under grace" (Romans 6:14), and you say we are under the law, then you are the one contradicting the Apostle.
You’re trying to "graft" the Church into a national identity that Paul said was done away with in Christ. In the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:28). You’re trying to build a middle wall of partition that Jesus Christ tore down!
4. Who’s Lawless?
You keep throwing "Lawlessness" around like a hot potato. You think the "delusion" is Grace. I’m telling you the delusion is Work-Salvation disguised as "heritage."
• Your Truth: Keep the Torah or be "least" and "unknown."
• The Bible’s Truth: Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:4).
You want to talk about Matthew 7? The people Jesus turned away were the ones bragging about what they had done, their "many wonderful works." They weren't trusting in the Blood; they were trusting in their performance. That’s you, J.G.! You’re standing there with your tassels and your reading plan, telling God how well you’ve kept His instructions.
The Shofar’s Final Note
You’ve done your "job" as a watchman? Well, I’m doing mine as a Bible Believer. You’re telling people to "come out of Babylon," but you’re leading them straight back to Mount Sinai, a mountain that gendereth to bondage (Galatians 4:24).
I don't need your reading plan. I have a Book that hasn't changed, a Savior who finished the work, and a New Testament that means exactly what it says in plain English. If that makes me a "Greco-Roman" in your eyes, then "Hail Caesar," because I’m saved by Grace and I’m not going back to the "beggarly elements" of the law for nobody!
Enjoy your "one stick," son. I’ll be at the Marriage Supper because I’m part of the Body of the Groom! Amen? Amen!
I am only replying now so that other who find it in the future will see the rebuttal. Honestly, all of your arguments summarize down to "But Paul..." The much misunderstood Paul, Peters words (2 Peter 3:16). You prove Peter right. I have said my piece. I will waste no more time on this thread as I made my case in the original article and in several replies to you. I have a Substack that expands on these things, and I wrote a book that you can find there to go deeper.
You keep following your Grecko-Roman Jesus, the one created in the fourth century, long after Yeshua lived and after the apostles were long dead. The Hebrew, Israelite of the tribe of Judah, Yeshua, kept Torah. We are told to walk as He walked (1 John 2:6). You keep arguing "But Paul..." You claim to be part of the bride, but you won't even obey the house rules or the marriage vows!! Good luck with that.
We're done! You will never convince me to be Lawless (been there, done that). I just pray that you will quit influencing other to be that way.
Galatians 2
14 ¶ But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 ¶ But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Keep the almost 300 laws and statutes up there too. You want the rest of the 613 , let me know.
Let the people read and turn to Jesus. The author and finisher of their faith.
You say we’re "done." Fine by me! You can head back to your website and keep trying to "renew" a marriage contract that resulted in a divorce decree. You keep trying to be a "good bride" by keeping "house rules" that were designed to show you that you’re a failure.
I’ll stay right here with the Resurrected King who gave me His own righteousness as a gift. I’m not "influencing people to be lawless"; I’m influencing them to be Free!
If you want to spend your life in the kitchen scrubbing the pots of the Law, that’s your business. But I’m going to be at the table, eating the feast that the Groom already paid for.
Amen? Amen!
Gregory, I read through your comments, and I will say plainly that while I disagree with John on several points, I disagree with your framework much more deeply. John and I have points where we agree and points where we agree to disagree. With your argument, however, I think the foundation itself is misplaced. And your tone from the beginning unbecoming of any Christian towards Torah or anyone who wants to follow it. It's purpose is for a holier nation to steward in the land, and to mock it in any way is mocking the commandments God gave that nation to follow and serve Him in the land.
I am happy to go point by point with you, every last one of them, but I will start with the major issues first among your points.
First, your repeated contrast between “grace” and “Torah” assumes a later Christian framework that Scripture itself does not require. Torah was not given to the nations as their covenant law code, and Gentiles are not placed under Sinai as though they became Israelites. But neither do I accept the idea that Torah is a dead, dirty, failed thing to be mocked as “scrubbing the pots of the Law.” That kind of language is not merely colorful; it is careless. Torah is YHWH’s instruction given to Israel within Israel’s covenant. If we are going to say it no longer functions in a certain way, we should still speak of it with reverence, not contempt. It was given to Israel by God Himself. Mocking that is, in a sense, mocking God's plan.
Second, Jeremiah 31 is explicit. The renewed covenant is made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” It is not made with a detached Gentile church, and it is not made with the nations as nations. The question is not whether we prefer the word “new” or “renewed” in English. The question is covenant identity: with whom is YHWH making this covenant? Jeremiah answers that directly. The houses of Israel and Judah. No one else.
Third, Jesus’s role must be kept within the role Scripture gives him. He is Israel’s Messiah, the appointed Son, the Davidic heir, the mediator, and the one whom God raised, vindicated, and gave authority over the nations as their Kinsman-Redeemer. He cannot be the Messiah of the nations because a messiah is one that is appointed into a role, and Jesus is appointed by God Himself as King of Israel under God's authority as promised to David. That supports Israel’s covenant story. It confirms and advances it. The nations come under the authority of God’s appointed King over Israel, but that is not the same thing as saying the nations become Israel or that Jeremiah’s covenant suddenly becomes a Gentile church covenant. In simple terms, Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, their King, appointed by God in the line of David, and the Kinsman-Redeemer given authority over the nations under God's authority.
Fourth, your “all 613” argument misses the covenant structure of Torah itself which apparently you are remiss in understanding. Torah contains commands for priests, kings, men, women, farmers, judges, the land, the Temple, ritual purity, sacrifices, and national governance. Not every command applied to every Israelite in every circumstance even within ancient Israel. So listing commands that require a Temple, priesthood, court, land inheritance, or specific social role does not prove Torah was absurd or impossible. It proves Torah was a covenant law code for a particular people, land, priesthood, and kingdom order that God Himself set up.
Fifth, when Paul argues that Gentiles are not justified by works of law, he is not teaching contempt for Torah. He is addressing covenant boundary markers, justification, and the status of Gentiles in regards to Israel's Messiah. Paul cannot be used to make Jeremiah disappear, erase Israel and Judah from their own covenant promises, or turn YHWH’s instruction into something shameful. If Paul is read in a way that makes the prophets irrelevant, then the reading of Paul needs to be reexamined. Paul is saying that Torah, no matter how faithful one is to it, cannot bring salvation just like any works at all cannot bring salvation. It is the covenant with which Israel is to live by in the land, but it is not the source of salvation for Israel or the nations. And may I interject one more point here, Jesus did come to renew the covenant between Israel and God as their mediator and King. When a new leadership is appointed by a king, in this case, God Himself, the Great King, the suzerain, the "old" covenant is renewed or remade under the newly appointed leadership. That's what Jesus was doing. The nations are not a part of that in any way at all.
Sixth, “lawlessness” should not be flattened into either “not keeping all 613 laws” or “trying to earn salvation.” In the biblical framework, lawlessness is rebellion against God’s authority and order by any person, nation, or people. For Israel, that rebellion is often expressed as covenant unfaithfulness to Torah. For the nations, rebellion is judged according to the authority and order God gives to the nations. The categories are not identical, and forcing them into one later law-versus-grace debate oversimplifies Scripture so one misses the depth of the meaning.
Seventh, I do not accept the idea that the only choices are John’s framework or yours. That is a false frame. I do not hold that the nations are under Sinai Torah as Israel is. I also do not hold that Torah is bondage, failure, or a dirty pot to be scrubbed for anyone. It is a holy law given to a holy people for a particular purpose by God Himself. My framework is this: Torah is Israel’s covenant instruction; Jeremiah’s renewed covenant is with Israel and Judah; Jesus is Israel’s appointed Messiah through whom God ratifies Israel’s covenant renewal and extends royal authority over the nations in the role of Kinsman-Redeemer; the nations receive blessing through Abraham’s promise and allegiance to God’s appointed king, but they do not become parties to Jeremiah 31 in the same way Israel and Judah are.
Finally, I would be careful with the sarcasm. You may disagree with John, and so do I on several matters, but mocking Torah observance as “scrubbing the pots of the Law” is not a serious argument. It is rhetoric. Torah is not our enemy. Misapplied Torah, misplaced covenant identity, and works-righteousness are problems. But YHWH’s instruction should not be treated with contempt. And I cannot imagine God is pleased by anyone who takes a holy law He made in covenant with a nation He chose and chooses to mock it.
I will gladly discuss each and every point with you. I stand on a firm foundation. But I will not accept the framing that honoring Scripture’s covenant distinctions is “playing Pharisee,” nor will I accept the idea that later church categories get to override Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deuteronomy, Matthew, Paul, or the covenant world in which they wrote. And I definitely call you out on that and your derision towards Torah.
Part 2:
Now let’s deal with your Torah argument.
You said not all 613 commands applied to every Israelite.
Fine.
Then answer the question plainly:
Which ones are binding now?
Animal sacrifices?
Stoning adulterers?
Levitical purity?
Fringes?
Temple attendance?
Dietary laws?
Land sabbaths?
Priestly regulations?
You people always retreat into abstractions because specifics expose the contradiction.
Acts 15 settled the matter for Gentiles.
Galatians settled the matter doctrinally.
Hebrews settled the matter covenantally.
And the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 settled it historically.
God Himself ended the sacrificial system permanently.
Yet Torah defenders keep trying to hold together a covenant order that no longer even possesses:
— a Temple
— a priesthood
— a sacrifice
— an altar
— an ark
— a throne
— or a land inheritance operating under Mosaic law
And somehow I’m the one ignoring reality?
You said lawlessness is rebellion against God’s order.
Correct again.
And according to the New Testament, the man who rejects the finished work of Christ to return to the Law is rebelling against God’s present revelation.
Galatians 5:
“Ye are fallen from grace.”
Not because the Law was evil.
Because the Law was fulfilled.
There’s the difference you keep missing.
The Law was a schoolmaster.
Not a permanent husband.
The shadows were holy.
But they were still shadows.
And when the Body showed up, God expected people to stop hugging silhouettes.
Now as for “scrubbing pots of the Law”:
If a man spends his life obsessing over dietary codes, ritual distinctions, feast days, and external observances while rejecting the liberty found in Christ, then yes, spiritually speaking, he’s polishing kitchenware while ignoring resurrection.
That isn’t contempt for God’s Law.
That’s contempt for dead religion pretending to be spirituality.
The Pharisees tithed mint and cumin while plotting to kill God manifest in the flesh standing three feet away from them.
External precision without spiritual regeneration is exactly what Jesus condemned.
And finally:
You accuse me of using “later church categories.”
No ma’am.
I’m using the King James Bible.
And when I read Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews together, I do not see Moses enthroned over the Church.
I see Jesus Christ.
Crucified.
Risen.
Glorified.
Complete.
Not assisting Sinai.
Replacing it.
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
That verse alone detonates half your framework.
You’re trying to preserve distinctions God dissolved in Christ spiritually while simultaneously denying the plain force of the apostolic revelation.
You want Torah honored?
Fine.
Then honor its purpose:
to reveal sin,
to condemn man,
to point to Christ,
and to end where God ended it:
at Calvary.
1. You ask which commands are binding now? Sacrifices? Stoning? Purity? Fringes? Temple? Diet? Land sabbaths? Priestly regulations? I say again, Torah is not binding on the nations as their covenant law code. Torah was given to Israel as Israel’s covenant instruction under YHWH’s kingship. Gentiles are not under Sinai Torah, nor are they an extension of Israel’s Torah obligations. So none apply now or ever did for the nations, and some are not practiced today by Israel because they are not in the land. The better question is what universal moral order applies to all nations, and how is that moral order also witnessed within Torah because Israel is also a nation under God? Refer to the Ten Commandments please. Those will tell you all of the universal laws that Torah began with then expanded into the covenantal laws for Israel. That distinction matters.
2. Acts 15, Galatians, Hebrews, and AD 70
You say in simple terms that Acts 15 settled it for Gentiles. Galatians settled it doctrinally. Hebrews settled it covenantally. AD 70 settled it historically.
I agree that Acts 15 does show Gentiles were not required to come under Torah as Jews. Acts 15 does not make Torah dirty or obsolete as Israel’s covenant instruction. It shows that Gentiles were not required to become Jews or take on Israel’s covenant law code.
Hebrews addresses the priestly/sacrificial system and Jesus’s superior mediating role. But Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31, which explicitly names Israel and Judah. Hebrews cannot be used to erase the covenant parties in the very passage it cites.
For AD 70 the destruction of the Temple ended the functioning Temple system historically, but historical destruction is not the same as saying God’s instruction became contemptible or that Israel’s covenant identity vanished. Torah contains laws for Israel as a people, ones for in the land and outside the land, and others that are separate from the Temple. The destruction of a building does not destroy the whole of Torah.
3. “No Temple, priesthood, sacrifice, altar…”
You list no Temple, no priesthood, no sacrifice, no altar, no ark, no throne, no land inheritance operating under Mosaic law. This is a strong point against people claiming Torah can be fully practiced now and I agree, but I am not claiming that. Torah cannot function fully without land, Temple, priesthood, courts, and national covenant order. That proves Torah was a covenant law code for Israel’s national life, not a universal law code imposed on all nations, and to be abolished. And again, not all of Torah is for those particular points so not all of it cannot be practiced.
4. “The man who returns to the Law rejects Christ”
You say in simple terms that the man who rejects the finished work of Christ to return to the Law is rebelling against God’s present revelation. This is only true if someone is seeking justification, righteousness, or covenant inclusion by Torah observance apart from God’s appointed Messiah. One can follow the laws of Torah that are applicable outside the land and without a temple, believe Jesus is the Messiah, and choose loyalty and allegiance to God and His Son. There is nothing in there that rejects the roles Jesus fulfilled and still fulfills. I do not argue that. The nations come under the authority of Yeshua because God appointed him and gave him authority. Gentiles are not justified by Torah observance, nor required to become Jews. But that does not mean Torah’s only purpose was to condemn and disappear.
5. “The Law was a schoolmaster, not a permanent husband”
You sight Galatians imagery. Paul’s schoolmaster/tutor language in Galatians addresses the role of Torah in relation to Messiah and Gentile inclusion. It does not mean Torah was worthless, dirty, or merely a failed religious system. Nor does it mean Israel and the nations cease to be distinct covenant categories. This is more responding to John’s marriage metaphor, and I do not hold John’s literal marriage framework either. I do not treat Torah as a husband. I treat Torah as Israel’s covenant instruction under YHWH’s kingship.
6. “Shadows were holy, but still shadows”
You says, When the Body showed up, God expected people to stop hugging silhouettes.
That is clever language, but it oversimplifies. Yes, some things in Torah are typological and point forward. But “shadow” does not mean worthless. It also does not mean the prior revelation becomes false or unholy. Fulfillment does not mean contempt. A shadow can point forward without becoming shameful once the fullness arrives. Also, not everything in Torah is a “shadow” in the same way. Commands against murder, oppression, theft, false witness, sexual immorality, idolatry, and bloodshed are not merely ceremonial shadows. They witness to God’s moral universal order. Are you saying those do not apply universally because Torah is abolished and that law gone?
7. “Scrubbing pots of the Law”
You double-down on if a man obsesses over dietary codes, ritual distinctions, feast days, and external observances while rejecting liberty in Christ, then yes, he is polishing kitchenware while ignoring resurrection. This is aimed at dead ritualism. I can agree dead ritualism is a problem. But using contemptuous wording toward categories God gave Israel is offensive. External observance without covenant loyalty is condemned by the prophets and Yeshua. I agree. But that is not permission to mock Torah itself or collapse all Torah observance into dead religion.
8. Pharisees and external precision
You say the Pharisees tithed mint and cumin while plotting to kill God manifest in the flesh.
Jesus criticized leaders for neglecting weightier matters: justice, mercy, faithfulness. But He did not mock Torah as unholy. In Matthew 23:23, He says they should have done the weightier matters without neglecting the others. That’s a universal kindness, not particularly Torah. Jesus condemned hypocrisy, not Torah. He rebuked external precision that lacked justice, mercy, and faithfulness. And I do not believe Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. There is nothing in Scripture that supports that. It is later modern reinterpretation and misunderstanding of kingdom roles and language.
9. “I’m using the King James Bible”
The King James Bible is itself a seventeenth-century English translation produced within later church categories. Using the KJV is reading a seventeenth-century English translation. And while I do not mock it nor criticize it, I will say reading it is like reading Shakespeare. We understand the English words, but we do not understand what they meant at the time of the writing. For example, “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” does not mean “Where are you located, Romeo?” Wherefore meant “why”, not location during that time period. She was asking why he had to be from a Montague family. It continued to mean that up into the seventeenth century in many writings. So my question would be, does “wherefore” continue to mean “why” in the KJV? And how many other English words, understood in England, not America, are not the same meaning as today. We need to remember that England’s culture and language does not match ours or what it is today. Careful study is therefore recommended of historical context. And my concern is not whether one uses the KJV. My concern is whether the reader imports post-biblical theological categories into Israel’s covenant texts.
10. “Christ is the end of the law”
You say Romans 10:4 detonates half my framework. It does not. Romans 10:4 says Christ is the telos of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Telos can mean end, goal, culmination, aim. Even if one translates it “end,” the issue in Romans 10 is righteousness/justification, not whether Torah was ever holy instruction for Israel or whether Jeremiah’s covenant parties vanish. And again, law never justifies or saves anyway so… salvation was not dependent on it then or now.
11. “God dissolved distinctions in Christ”
You says that I am trying to preserve distinctions God dissolved in Christ spiritually. Nope, I say shared standing in Messiah does not erase all covenant distinctions. Paul can say “neither Jew nor Greek” in relation to status and inheritance in Messiah while still speaking of Israel, Gentiles, natural branches, wild branches, promises, covenants, fathers, and nations. Equality before God’s appointed Messiah is not the same thing as erasing Israel and the nations as scriptural categories.
12. “Torah’s purpose: reveal sin, condemn man, point to Christ, end at Calvary”
Your summary of Torah is too narrow.
Torah does reveal sin, expose rebellion, include sacrificial/atonement systems that point beyond themselves, and does lead toward Messiah. It also teaches wisdom, orders Israel’s national life, reveals YHWH’s justice, protects the vulnerable, forms Israel as a holy people, distinguishes Israel from the nations, contains universal moral order, and witnesses to God’s kingship.
You are arguing against a Torah-for-Gentiles framework I do not hold. I do not believe the nations are under Sinai Torah. Acts 15 supports that. But your conclusion goes too far. Torah’s non-application to Gentiles as covenant law does not make Torah dead religion, bondage, or kitchenware. It remains YHWH’s holy instruction to Israel and a witness to His justice, wisdom, and universal moral order.
The fact that Torah requires land, priesthood, Temple, courts, and national order proves my point: Torah was given to Israel as a covenant nation. The nations are accountable to God’s universal moral order and to His appointed Messiah, not to Sinai as Israel’s covenant code.
Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and Acts must be read without erasing Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deuteronomy, or the covenant identities named in the text. Jesus is not “assisting Sinai,” nor is He detached from Israel’s story. He is the one God appointed to fulfill Israel’s promises and extend God’s kingdom authority over the nations.
Are you saved? When you die, do you know your final destination? Salvation is easy, God made it so we pitiful could lay hold of it:
1. Romans 3:23 – All have sinned
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
2. Romans 6:23 – The consequence of sin
“For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
3. Romans 5:8 – God’s love and Christ’s sacrifice
“But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
4. Romans 10:9-10 – Confession and belief bring salvation
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
5. Romans 10:13 – Salvation is for all who call upon the Lord
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Have you asked Jesus to save you?
Prayed some like this at one time: "Jesus, my Lord and my God, save me!"
Plus nothing?
Minus nothing?
It is finished.
Gregory, I understand why you are asking, and I will answer plainly.
Yes, I belong to God. I have pledged my allegiance, trust, and loyalty to God, the Great King and Creator, and to Jesus, His Son, whom God raised, vindicated, appointed, and gave authority over me as one from the nations.
I would define salvation within that framework: God saves through His appointed Son. God is the source of salvation. Jesus is the one through whom God brings that salvation, because God gave Him that role and authority as the Kinsman-Redeemer.
Even the passages you listed point in that direction. Romans 6:23 says eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus the Messiah our Lord. Romans 5:8 says God demonstrates His love through Messiah’s death. Romans 10:9 says to confess Jesus as Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead. So yes, I confess Jesus as Lord in authority given to Him by God as one from the nations, and I believe God raised Him from the dead.
Where I differ is that I do not use the phrase “Jesus, my Lord and my God, save me,” because in my framework God alone is the Great King and Creator. I honor Jesus as God’s Son, Messiah, mediator, king, and the one given authority by God. I do not collapse Him into God Himself. I give God the greater honor and Jesus the honor that God commands me to give Him as His Son.
So no, I do not trust Torah, works, merit, denomination, or myself. I trust God, and I trust the one God appointed. My allegiance is to God and to His Son. I believe God saves through Jesus, and I seek to remain faithful to both.
Part 3
Now let’s address your rejection of Christ’s deity.
You said:
“There is nothing in Scripture supporting God manifest in the flesh.”
Ma’am, now we’ve arrived at the real center of this discussion.
Because your framework consistently lowers Christ into a delegated agent role instead of recognizing the full revelation given in the New Testament.
John 1:
“The Word was God.”
John 8:
“Before Abraham was, I am.”
Thomas:
“My Lord and my God.”
Colossians 2:
“In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
First Timothy 3:16:
“God was manifest in the flesh.”
Hebrews 1 says the Son is addressed:
“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.”
And Revelation presents all heaven worshipping the Lamb alongside the Father.
Now you can explain those away through agency theories and covenantal role language, but the apostles preached far more than merely an exalted human king.
They preached incarnation.
And honestly, that explains much of the tension in your system.
Because once Christ is reduced primarily to appointed covenant representative rather than divine Son, the entire New Testament begins collapsing backward into administrative covenant categories instead of exploding outward into cosmic fulfillment.
That is exactly what your framework keeps doing.
You accuse me of importing later theology.
But the highest Christology in the New Testament appears in the earliest Christian writings themselves.
The apostles did not gradually evolve Jesus upward into deity centuries later.
They preached Him as Lord from the beginning.
Finally:
You keep saying:
“I am not erasing Christ from Israel’s story.”
Good.
But the apostles also refused to trap Him inside it.
He is the fulfillment of Israel’s story precisely because He is greater than Israel itself.
Greater than Moses.
Greater than the Temple.
Greater than David.
Greater than the priesthood.
Greater than Sinai.
That is the entire argument of Hebrews.
And once the Greater arrives, the lesser — however holy — cannot continue functioning the same way.
Not because it was evil.
Because it was preparatory.
Gregory, this is probably the real center of where our frameworks differ, so I will answer your points directly and as clearly as I can.
You said I reject Christ’s deity. That is correct if by “deity” you mean Jesus is God Himself, equal to the Father, the Almighty, the Creator, or the Alpha and Omega. But I do not reject Jesus’s divinely given role, authority, exaltation, holiness, sonship, kingship, or importance. I believe Jesus is God’s Son, Israel’s Messiah, the promised Son of David, the faithful Israelite, the mediator, the kinsman-redeemer, the prophet like Moses, the firstborn from the dead, and the one to whom God gives authority over Israel and the nations. That does not diminish Jesus. It honors Him according to the roles God Himself gives him.
Now to your passages.
John 1 “The Word was God.”
During John's time, the Greek word, Logos, meant declaration, plan, intent, speech, thought, etc. It never meant person or divine person during his time. In that context, John is saying God’s word, speech, reason, plan, declaration, or self-expression. John begins “in the beginning,” deliberately reaching back to Genesis. God speaks, God declares, and what God declares comes to be.
So I understand John 1 as saying God’s own word/declaration/plan was with Him from the beginning and was fully expressive of Him. That word became flesh in Jesus. In other words, Jesus is the embodiment and manifestation of God’s declared purpose, not God Himself as a second person.
A simple analogy would be a royal decree or blueprint. The plan belongs to the king, comes from the king, expresses the king’s will, and is eventually embodied in what is built. The building is the manifestation of the plan, but it is not the king himself.
John 8 “Before Abraham was, I am.”
This is in light of purpose, promise, and identity within God’s plan. Jesus is not claiming to be older than Abraham in a biological sense. He is confronting leaders who are boasting in being in the descent of Abraham while failing to recognize the one God appointed as the fulfillment of the promise. When one boasted their genealogy back then, it gave them status in the community. The more honored the genealogy, the higher the status.
Before Abraham, the promise already existed in God’s declared plan. The seed promise goes back to Genesis 3:15. Jesus’s role did not begin with Abraham. It was in God’s purpose from the beginning. So when Jesus speaks this way, He is locating Himself in God’s plan before Abraham’s covenant line, not declaring Himself to be the Almighty God.
In other words, He's saying, "Hey, go ahead and boast your ancestral line. I was in God's plan and purpose long before Abraham even existed. Promised in Genesis 3:15."
Thomas “My Lord and my God.”
Thomas’s statement is in the context of agency, representation, and revelation. Jesus is the image of God, the one through whom God is made known. To see Jesus is to see the Father’s character, authority, and work revealed through the Son He sent.
So yes, Thomas recognizes Jesus as Lord, and in seeing the risen Jesus he also recognizes the God who sent, raised, vindicated, and revealed Himself through Him. But I do not take that as overturning Jesus’s own repeated distinction between himself and “my God” and “your God.”
In that culture, the one appointed and sent was seen as if they were the king themself. They were to be addressed and treated as if they were the king themself because he sent them in all his authority to represent the king. Genesis states we are made in the image of God. Are we God?
Colossians 2 “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
This is God’s fullness dwelling in Jesus by God’s will, presence, authority, and appointment. The fullness of God is embodied in Him because God chose to make Himself known through His Son. That does not require Jesus to be God Himself. Scripture can speak of God’s presence, Spirit, wisdom, authority, and fullness dwelling in the one He appoints without collapsing that appointed one into God.
Jesus is the full and faithful embodiment of God’s purpose, presence, and authorized rule. That is exalted language, but it is still consistent with Jesus being the Son sent and empowered by the Father.
1 Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh.”
This wording is actually textually debated, with some manuscripts reading “He who was manifested in the flesh” rather than “God was manifest in the flesh.” But even if someone uses the KJV wording, I would still read “manifest” carefully. God was made known, revealed, and displayed in and through Jesus. That is not the same thing as saying Jesus is God Himself.
God’s character, mercy, authority, and saving purpose were manifested in the flesh through His appointed Son. That fits the agency framework throughout Scripture: the sent one reveals the sender.
Hebrews 1 “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.”
Hebrews 1 is quoting royal enthronement language from Psalm 45. In the biblical and ANE world, kings could be addressed with exalted divine language because they sat as God’s appointed ruler, representing God’s authority. But the very next line says, “Therefore God, your God, has anointed you.” That matters. The one addressed in royal language still has a God above Him who anoints and appoints Him. He is Jesus's God clearly stated by God Himself.
So Hebrews 1 does not collapse Jesus into God Himself. It exalts Yeshua as God’s royal Son, enthroned and anointed by God above his companions.
Revelation - heaven worships/praises the Lamb alongside the Father.
Yes, the Lamb is honored alongside the One seated on the throne. I agree. But the imagery still distinguishes the Lamb from the One seated on the throne. The Lamb is worthy because He was slain and because God has exalted Him. He receives honor because God commands the Son to be honored and because He faithfully fulfills the role given to Him.
Being praised alongside God does not mean he is the same being as God. It means God has placed His Lamb, His Son, His appointed king, in the highest position under Himself.
Now, you say the apostles preached incarnation. I disagree. I believe the apostles preached that God sent His Son, raised Him from the dead, exalted Him, made him Lord and Messiah, and gave Him authority. That is the language repeated again and again.
You also say my framework creates tension. I do not see that tension. My framework follows the kingdom and covenant language Scripture itself uses: God sends, God appoints, God raises, God exalts, God gives authority, Jesus obeys, Jesus receives, Jesus mediates, Jesus reigns, and all of this is to the glory of God the Father as Jesus clearly states more than once. He always points to the Father and the glory of the Father, not to Himself.
If you see tension there, I would ask you to identify exactly where the tension is.
You continue to say I reduce Jesus to an appointed covenant representative. I do not. I list many roles Scripture gives him: Son, Messiah, King, mediator, kinsman-redeemer, faithful Israelite, Son of David, prophet like Moses, firstborn from the dead, judge, and ruler over the nations by God’s authority.
I do believe Jesus is divine in the sense that He is born by God’s action, filled with God’s Spirit, appointed by God, exalted by God, and uniquely represents God. But divine does not automatically mean deity. Only God is God. Jesus is divine as God’s Son.
To me, your framework risks doing what you accuse me of doing. You say I reduce Jesus by keeping Him under God’s authority. By stating His roles and how He fulfills them. But I would say identifying Jesus simply as “God” can actually flatten the very roles Scripture gives Him. If Jesus is simply God Himself, then his obedience, sonship, mediation, appointment, exaltation, and receiving of authority become harder to read plainly, and, quite frankly, should not be all that important to be mentioned in Scripture. Why not God came in the flesh and did this spoken plainly?
I honor both God and Jesus in the order Scripture presents: God as the Great King and Creator, and Jesus as His faithful Son whom He appoints over Israel and the nations.
You mentioned “the highest Christology” in the earliest writings. I would simply say this: high Christology is not the same thing as later Trinitarian deity claims. The earliest writings can exalt Jesus tremendously as Lord, Messiah, Son, image, mediator, and ruler without making Him God Himself. The apostles preached him as Lord from the beginning, yes. I agree. But “Lord” does not automatically mean “YHWH Himself.” Kings, masters, and appointed rulers can be called lord. Jesus is Lord because God made him Lord and Messiah.
Finally, I agree that Jesus is greater than Moses, greater than the Temple, greater than David, greater than the priesthood, and greater than Sinai. Hebrews absolutely presents Him as greater. The question is what kind of “greater” Hebrews means. I understand it as greater in role, authority, mediation, inheritance, and appointment because God, His Father, has exalted Him above all others.
And yes, I agree that many things were preparatory. But that preparation goes all the way back to Genesis 3:15. This is God’s plan from the beginning: humanity exiled from the household, God promising a seed, then moving through covenant, Israel, David, exile, restoration, and finally Jesus.
Jesus is essential to God’s plan. Without Him, the restoration plan does not reach its appointed goal. But it is still God’s plan. God is the Great King and Creator. God makes the promises. God sends the Son, raises Him, and gives Him authority. God restores His creation through Him in the roles that God appointed Him and exalted Him to. I will not exalt Jesus in a way that diminishes God, the Father, the One whom Jesus Himself calls “my God.”
I have a question. What requires Jesus to be God? What would happen or not happen if Jesus was God's Son, apart from God?
Part 2
Now regarding Acts 15:
You keep saying:
“Acts 15 only proves Gentiles need not become Jews.”
Correct.
And that alone destroys the idea that Torah identity remains covenantally central after Christ.
Because if covenant identity through Sinai were still God’s active structure, the apostles would never have released Gentiles from it so decisively.
Instead Peter says:
“Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples?”
A yoke.
Not merely “national instruction.”
Paul then spends Galatians warning that returning to covenant markers like circumcision places men under obligation to the whole law.
Why?
Because covenant systems come as units.
You cannot separate Sinai into harmless cultural fragments while denying its covenant authority structure.
That is exactly what Paul fights repeatedly.
Now on Hebrews and Jeremiah:
You keep saying:
“Hebrews cannot erase the named covenant parties.”
Nobody erased them.
The issue is fulfillment and expansion through Christ.
The New Testament repeatedly takes promises rooted in Israel and extends their realization outward through union with the Messiah.
That’s apostolic theology.
Not replacement theology.
Fulfillment theology.
Gentiles are not “becoming ethnic Israel.”
They are being incorporated into Christ.
And since Christ is Israel’s Messiah, participation in Him joins them to covenant fulfillment.
That’s precisely why Paul uses grafting imagery.
Not parallel peoples forever separated covenantally,
but one cultivated tree.
Now concerning A.D. 70:
You say destruction of the Temple does not make Torah contemptible.
Correct again.
But you keep arguing against a point I never made.
I never said Torah became evil.
I said God Himself terminated its covenant administration through fulfillment.
Those are not the same statement.
The Temple’s destruction matters because it publicly demonstrated that the old covenant order had been judicially closed.
Hebrews says the old covenant was “ready to vanish.”
A.D. 70 showed it vanishing historically exactly as Jesus prophesied.
That matters enormously.
Now regarding your statement:
“One can follow applicable Torah commands while believing Jesus is Messiah.”
Of course someone can observe customs voluntarily.
Paul himself accommodated Jewish customs at times.
The issue becomes whether Torah observance retains covenantal significance after Christ.
Paul’s answer:
not for justification,
not for covenant inclusion,
not for spiritual status,
not for righteousness,
and not as binding covenant obligation.
Which means the very thing you’re trying to preserve has already been emptied of covenant necessity.
At that point, Torah observance becomes cultural or personal practice — not covenant structure.
And once you admit that, your entire argument loses most of its force.
Part 1
You keep insisting you are preserving distinctions.
What you are actually doing is reconstructing a theological middle-ground the apostles never camped in.
You say:
“Torah is not binding on the nations.”
Fine.
The apostles agreed.
Then you spend the next several thousand words trying to preserve Torah as an ongoing covenant identity structure after the arrival of the very fulfillment it anticipated.
That is where the problem starts.
Because the New Testament never treats Torah as merely “Israel’s continuing national constitution awaiting proper context restoration.”
It treats it as fulfilled, surpassed, and rendered inoperative as covenant authority through Jesus Christ.
Not evil.
Not sinful.
Not dirty.
Completed.
That is the distinction you keep resisting.
You keep repeating:
“It remains holy instruction.”
Of course it was holy instruction.
Nobody denied that except the heretics.
But something can be holy and temporary.
The Tabernacle was holy.
The Levitical priesthood was holy.
Animal sacrifices were holy.
Circumcision was holy.
And every one of them was superseded in Christ.
Your argument keeps assuming:
“If something was holy, it must remain covenantally active.”
The New Testament never argues that way.
Hebrews explicitly argues the opposite.
Now let’s address your “universal moral order” distinction.
You say the Ten Commandments represent universal morality while the expanded Torah code contains Israel-specific covenant legislation.
All right.
Then notice what you just admitted:
parts of Torah were temporary, covenant-bound, and nationally restricted.
Exactly.
That is already enough to dismantle the rhetoric about “eternal Torah obligation” being advanced by many covenantal Torah defenders.
Now you personally may not hold that position fully, but your framework keeps orbiting around preserving Torah-status after fulfillment instead of recognizing the transition the apostles preached.
And notice carefully:
the moral law continuing does not require the Sinai covenant continuing.
Murder was wrong before Moses.
Idolatry was wrong before Moses.
Adultery was wrong before Moses.
Why?
Because morality originates in God’s character — not merely in Sinai legislation.
That’s why Christians can affirm moral truth while recognizing the Mosaic covenant itself has passed.
Part 1:
Ma’am, you’ve written a long letter defending a covenant you cannot keep, to uphold a law you do not obey, while rebuking a man for speaking plainly about what your own apostles said was temporary.
Now let’s quit dancing around the issue.
You say I mock Torah.
No ma’am.
I mock sinners who brag about reverencing Torah while breaking it daily.
There’s a difference.
David mocked Goliath.
Elijah mocked Baal.
Isaiah mocked idolaters.
Paul mocked circumcisionists.
And the Lord Jesus Christ called religious men “whited sepulchres,” “blind guides,” and “children of hell.”
So don’t lecture me about tone while defending a system God Himself nailed to the cross according to Colossians 2.
You said Torah is holy.
Of course it is.
Romans 7:12 already settled that:
“The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”
But the issue isn’t whether the Law was holy.
The issue is whether YOU are.
And according to Scripture, you’re not.
Neither am I.
That’s why Jesus Christ came.
You keep trying to preserve Sinai after Calvary like the Cross was merely a covenant-management update instead of the termination of the Old Covenant system.
Hebrews didn’t say “renewed administration.”
It said:
“A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
That’s Hebrews 8.
Not Scofield.
Not Darby.
Not “later church categories.”
The Holy Ghost said it.
You keep repeating:
“The covenant is with Israel and Judah.”
Correct.
And every saved Gentile in the Church is spiritually placed into Christ, where:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek.”
That’s Paul.
The same Paul you keep trying to muzzle with Jeremiah.
You act like Jeremiah cancels Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews.
It doesn’t.
The New Testament interprets the Old Testament.
Not the other way around.
You said Jesus cannot be “Messiah of the nations.”
Then explain why Revelation calls Him:
“KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
Explain why Isaiah said:
“The Gentiles shall trust in his name.”
Explain why Simeon called Him:
“A light to lighten the Gentiles.”
Explain why the Great Commission sends the Gospel to EVERY CREATURE.
You’re reducing Jesus Christ to a tribal monarch of ethnic Israel while the New Testament reveals Him as God manifest in the flesh ruling heaven, earth, Jews, Gentiles, angels, devils, death, hell, and eternity itself.
That doctrine shrinks Christ instead of exalting Him.
And then you accuse ME of diminishing Scripture.
You say, “You’ve written a long letter defending a covenant you cannot keep, to uphold a law you do not obey…” I did not say it was a covenant I can or cannot keep. I am not Israel, it is not my covenant to keep or not keep. I also said that Torah is Israel’s covenant law, given to Israel as YHWH’s chosen nation. The nations are not under Torah as their covenant code. The nations are accountable to God’s universal moral order, which Torah also contains because God is King over all.
Now where do the apostles say Torah is temporary? Specifically, that Torah is temporary.
You say that I said you mock Torah, and you respond with “I mock sinners who brag about reverencing Torah while breaking it daily.” It is God’s role to judge who does or doesn’t keep Torah or the universal law, not yours to mock and judge as Scripture clearly points out. Using language such as “scrubbing the pots of the Law,” “dead man named Moses,” “kitchen rules,” “desert with Moses”, does treat Torah contemptuously, not merely hypocritical Torah-keepers as you say you mock. Torah may not be the covenant code for Gentiles, but it remains holy instruction given by God to His holy nation. It should not be spoken of with contempt in any context, nor should Moses or anyone who chooses to follow Torah themselves. No one is perfect, and whether they choose to follow the universal law or Torah, we are not to mock any of their failures. I am not rebuking plain speech. I am objecting to contemptuous language toward what Scripture calls holy, just, and good.
You cite David, Elijah, Isaiah, Paul, and Jesus mocking opponents. That is a rhetoric shield. So, you say that in your view, biblical figures mocked people, therefore your sarcasm is justified? Did they mock or did they rebuke? There is a difference. David rebuked because God was mocked by Goliath. Elijah and Isaiah did mock, but against things that mocked God Himself. Jesus rebuked because leaders were violating covenant justice in their corrupt leadership. He was scolding them. None of them mocked anything related to God or Israel.
You say, “a system God Himself nailed to the cross according to Colossians 2.” Colossians 2:14 says the “record of debt” or “handwriting against us” was removed/nailing to the cross. The debt/condemnation was of humanity’s failures was removed, not God’s holy instruction to Israel in their covenantal relationship.
You say, “The issue isn’t whether the Law was holy. The issue is whether YOU are.”
My argument is not that I am made righteous by Torah observance and is mute because Torah is not for the nations of which I am. My argument is that covenant categories matter. If someone chooses to follow Torah themselves, again, following Torah does not make one holy or holier, it is a covenantal constitution with Israel living under covenant with God. It’s laws. Again, repeat, laws. Like do not do this or that. Just like nations have laws. It has nothing to do with degrees of holiness if one follows it, and following it does not provide salvation because they are laws. Salvation never depended on keeping Torah, ever, and not now for anyone who follows it. That would be like saying if I followed and obeyed every law of the country I live in, then I will be blessed and saved from something. Very big distinction between living by law, universal or Torah, and choosing allegiance and loyalty to God and Yeshua. The law, universal or Torah, is how to live under that allegiance and loyalty.
You say, “like the Cross was merely a covenant-management update instead of the termination of the Old Covenant system.” I am not saying Calvary is minor. I am saying Jesus’s death and resurrection must be understood inside Israel’s covenant story, not as a cancellation of that story. He is the Messiah of Israel, their King, and the Kinsman-Redeemer promised in Genesis 3:15 given authority over all the nations. Two roles addressing two purposes on the cross, one for Israel in promise to David, and one for the restoration of humanity to God. Jesus does not terminate YHWH’s promises to Israel. He ratifies the promised covenant renewal, is raised and vindicated by God, appointed as Israel’s Messiah, and is given authority over the nations as the Kinsman-Redeemer because of His obedience and loyalty to His Father. That is clear in Scripture.
Your point is Hebrews says new covenant; the first is old, decaying, ready to vanish, therefore it is not renewed administration. Let me ask you this… were Gentiles ever under the “old” law? And if not, then why would they be under a “new” covenant if they weren’t under an “old” one? Because this is a renewed covenant under a new administration under God Himself over Israel, and the “old” covenant is renewed or remade for that because only Israel was under the “old” covenant. Jeremiah clearly states who the renewed covenant is with, the houses of Israel and Judah. If you use that to show new covenant, then you are saying the Gentiles were under the old covenant and therefore are absorbed into Israel and placed under the renewed covenant because the old one is gone. Or are you saying that Jeremiah was not truthful? I am not muzzling one or the other. I am not using Jeremiah to cancel Paul. I am refusing to use Paul to cancel Jeremiah. Paul must be read as an apostle of Israel’s Messiah, not as someone authorized to rewrite the prophets into a detached Gentile church covenant. Paul stated more than once who he was, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Israelite, and a Pharisee of the highest learning. He did not leave his affiliations behind to become separate into something else. He was true to His Messiah, the King of Israel, as an Israelite, and true to Jesus, who is also the Kinsman-Redeemer, as a human who needed a path of restoration to God.
You state, “There is neither Jew nor Greek,” using Galatians 3:28 to erase covenant distinctions. But that passage is saying that there is equal standing in the Messiah and neither erases the historical covenant identities of Israel and the nations because the Messiah is both Israel’s King and given authority over the nations as the Kinsman-Redeemer. Paul can say there is neither Jew nor Greek regarding status in Messiah, while still speaking of Israel, Gentiles, promises, covenants, fathers, natural branches, wild branches, and nations.
You say, “The New Testament interprets the Old Testament. Not the other way around.” The “New Testament” authors did not reinterpret their prophets backwards. Their Bible was what we call the Old Testament. They argued from it because that was their foundation. They did not need to reinterpret what was already written. If the New Testament is read in a way that makes Jeremiah’s named covenant parties irrelevant, then the interpretation has departed from the text it claims to fulfill. Are you using modern understanding to reinterpret the New Testament? If so, please explain how today we understand adoption. Because in New Testament culture, it was primarily used to understand a legal placement of a son as an heir with inheritance and authority. Big difference.
I never said Jesus cannot be Messiah of the nations. I do not deny Jesus’s authority over the nations. I deny that “Messiah” is a generic office detached from Israel. Study the term messiah. Even the priest were called messiah, the anointed priests. The kings of Israel were called God’s anointed, messiah. The prophets were considered anointed ones, messiah. Messiah means anointed one for a role. Messiah is Israel’s anointed king. He is Israel’s Messiah, appointed by God, shown loyalty and obedience to His Father, and given authority over the nations as their Kinsman-Redeemer. So the nations are included under his rule, but that does not make him a “Messiah of the nations” in the same covenantal sense. The Messiah comes from Israel, to Israel, and then rules the nations by God’s appointment.
God gives Israel’s Messiah authority over the nations. Yes, the nations trust in Him. Yes, He is light to the Gentiles. Yes, the commission goes to all nations. None of that turns the nations into Israel or makes Jeremiah 31 a Gentile covenant.
You accuse me of “You’re reducing Jesus to a tribal monarch”. No, I am locating him in the role Scripture gives him. Besides, Israel is a nation with tribes. I point out that God raised Him, vindicated Him, appointed Him as Davidic heir, gave Him authority over the nations, and seated Him at His right hand. That is not shrinking Him. That is honoring the roles God gave Him that are clearly stated in Scripture. It is not diminishing Him to say He is King of Israel and given authority over the nations as God appointed Him. That is the highest honor that God can give His Son. Authority over God’s creation on earth. You don’t think so?
Part 2
Now let’s deal with your repeated statement:
“Gentiles were never under the old covenant, so how can they be under the new?”
Because salvation history expanded.
The New Covenant begins with Israel’s Messiah and extends outward to the nations through union with Him.
That is why Gentiles are called:
“fellowheirs.”
Not parallel heirs.
Not adjacent nations under separate covenant structures.
Fellowheirs.
Ephesians 2 says Gentiles who were:
“strangers from the covenants”
are now:
“made nigh by the blood of Christ.”
And what did Christ create?
“One new man.”
Not two covenant peoples eternally separated by legal identity categories.
You keep trying to preserve distinctions Paul repeatedly collapses spiritually in Christ.
Not ethnically.
Not historically.
Spiritually and covenantally.
There is still Jew and Gentile in history.
There is not Jew and Gentile in standing before God inside the Body of Christ.
That is Paul’s doctrine whether covenant theorists like it or not.
And as for your argument about Messiah:
You’re narrowing the office artificially.
Yes, “messiah” means anointed one.
Yes, kings and priests were anointed.
But the New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ explodes past every limited Old Testament category.
He is not merely another Davidic king ruling Israel under God.
He is:
— the image of the invisible God
— the creator of all things
— before all things
— upholding all things
— head of the Church
— judge of all nations
— Lord of glory
— Alpha and Omega
That is not merely “Israel’s king with expanded jurisdiction.”
That is universal sovereignty.
And when Philippians says:
“every knee should bow”
it does not say:
“because He is tribal covenant administrator for Israel.”
It says:
“to the glory of God the Father.”
The apostles did not preach Jesus as merely Israel’s covenant representative.
They preached Him as cosmic Lord.
Israel’s Messiah?
Absolutely.
ONLY Israel’s Messiah in the sense you keep framing it?
Not remotely.
Now on your point about Paul being an Israelite:
Of course he was.
Nobody disputes that.
But Paul repeatedly counted covenantal advantages as loss compared to Christ.
And in Philippians 3 he specifically warns against confidence in fleshly covenant distinctions.
Why?
Because something greater had arrived.
You keep insisting:
“I refuse to use Paul to cancel Jeremiah.”
But the apostles themselves taught that Jeremiah’s covenant reaches fulfillment in Christ in ways exceeding the expectations of national Israel alone.
That is exactly why Gentiles are grafted in.
Not as tourists near Israel’s kingdom.
But as participants in Christ Himself.
And that is the point you keep resisting:
the New Testament does not merely preserve covenant structures.
It climaxes them in Jesus Christ.
The Law pointed forward.
The prophets pointed forward.
The priesthood pointed forward.
The sacrifices pointed forward.
And once the fulfillment arrived, God expected men to stop staring at the signposts and behold the Son.
Gregory, first, thank you for keeping your responses more polite in tone. I do appreciate that. However, I need to say this clearly before continuing: please stop telling me I am saying things I have not said.
I have met your points directly and answered your questions. I am still waiting for you to answer several of mine. But instead of addressing what I actually said, you continue to restate my position as though I am reducing Jesus to a “tribal covenant administrator,” denying his authority over the nations, or claiming Gentiles are merely tourists near Israel’s kingdom. I have not said those things so stop.
I will clarify once more, Jesus is not “merely” anything. He is Israel’s Messiah, the promised Davidic heir, the appointed Son, the mediator, the one God raised and vindicated, the one to whom God gave authority over the nations, and the one through whom the nations receive blessing and accountability. That is not a reduction of Jesus. That is honoring the roles Scripture gives him which you seem to ignore.
You continue to respond as though I defend Gentile obligation to Sinai Torah. I do not. I have said repeatedly that Torah was given to Israel as Israel’s covenant law, and that the nations are not under Torah in the same covenantal way. The nations are accountable to God’s universal moral order and to the authority God gives His appointed Messiah. So before we continue, please engage my actual position, not a version of it that is easier to refute for you.
I will gladly continue point by point. But if you continue to assert that I am saying things I have not said, then I will not keep engaging. A real discussion requires answering the argument actually being made.
Now, here are the questions I am still waiting for you to answer:
1. If Jeremiah 31 names the renewed covenant parties as the house of Israel and the house of Judah, where do the apostles explicitly redefine those covenant parties as “the Gentile church”?
2. If Gentiles were never under Sinai Torah as covenant law, in what sense are Gentiles released from Sinai Torah as though it had been their covenant jurisdiction? And what and whose covenant structures does the NT preserve?
3. When Paul says Gentiles are “fellow heirs,” fellow heirs of what exactly, and where does Paul say this erases Israel’s covenant identity rather than bringing Gentiles into blessing through Messiah? And what are they grafted into?
4. When you say Yeshua “fulfilled” the Law, do you mean he obeyed it fully, brought its prophetic patterns to their intended goal, or ended it entirely? Those are not the same claim.
5. If God promised David an heir and kingdom, and the prophets repeatedly speak of Israel’s restoration, where does Scripture say those promises are dissolved rather than fulfilled through God’s appointed Messiah?
And many others in other responses to yours that you have ignored.
I am not refusing Paul. I am refusing to use Paul to erase Jeremiah, Ezekiel, David, Israel, Judah, the nations, or the covenant categories Scripture itself gives us.
Part 1
You’ve done what most covenantal arguers eventually do:
you’ve built an elaborate framework of distinctions, administrations, identities, categories, national roles, and covenant placements, and somehow managed to miss the blazing center of the New Testament revelation sitting right in front of you.
Jesus Christ did not come merely to administrate Israel better.
He came to fulfill the Law, satisfy its demands, end its condemning authority, and establish something greater than Sinai.
Now before you accuse me again of “mocking Torah,” let’s settle something plainly.
I have already said the Law was holy.
Paul said it first.
The issue is not whether the Law came from God.
The issue is what God intended the Law to accomplish.
And according to the New Testament, its purpose was never permanence.
You asked:
“Where do the apostles specifically say Torah is temporary?”
All right.
Galatians 3:
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ… but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
A schoolmaster is temporary by definition.
Hebrews 7:
“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”
Not “clarification.”
Not “renewed administration.”
A change.
Hebrews 8:
“In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.”
Old means obsolete in covenantal function.
Hebrews 10:
The sacrifices are called:
“a shadow of good things to come.”
Shadows are temporary until the substance arrives.
Romans 10:4:
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.”
Not continuation.
End.
Second Corinthians 3 calls the Mosaic administration:
“that which is done away.”
Now you can construct covenantal distinctions around those verses all day long, but you cannot honestly pretend the apostolic witness presents Sinai as an ongoing covenant structure awaiting administrative renewal.
The apostles present Christ as fulfillment, culmination, and transition point.
Now concerning your statement:
“It is God’s role to judge, not yours to mock.”
Ma’am, Bible preaching has always included exposing hypocrisy with sharp language.
John the Baptist called religious leaders snakes.
Jesus called Herod a fox.
Paul wished Judaizers would mutilate themselves in Galatians 5.
That isn’t “gentle covenant dialogue.”
The Bible is not a graduate seminar in Near Eastern treaty structure.
It is a battlefield between truth and error.
And when men take what was designed to point to Christ and elevate it into a continuing covenant identity system that competes with the sufficiency of Christ, apostles spoke sharply about it.
Now notice carefully:
you keep insisting Torah observance does not save.
Good.
That’s correct.
But then you immediately turn around and defend Torah observance as covenantally meaningful in a continuing sense after the Cross.
That is exactly the issue Hebrews spends chapters dismantling.
You keep saying:
“It was Israel’s constitution.”
Fine.
Then where is the nation operating under it?
Where is the Temple?
Where is the Levitical priesthood?
Where are the sacrifices?
Where is the Davidic throne administering Torah jurisdiction?
Gone.
And according to the New Testament, gone by divine design.
You said Colossians 2 only removed the “debt,” not the Law itself.
Then explain why the very next verses mention:
“holyday… new moon… sabbath days… which are a shadow of things to come.”
Paul explicitly ties covenant observances to shadow-language fulfilled in Christ.
That is not merely cancellation of guilt.
That is displacement of covenant forms by fulfillment.
You keep separating “Torah” from “works-righteousness” as though that resolves the issue.
It doesn’t.
Galatians was not written against pagans trying to earn salvation through good deeds.
It was written against covenantal pressure to maintain Torah identity markers after Christ.
That’s the whole controversy.
1. “You’ve built an elaborate framework…”
But these “categories” are not my invention. Scripture itself is full of them: Kingdom. Covenant. Priesthood. Holy Land. Temple. Inheritance. Davidic throne. Israel. Judah. Nations. Messiah. Son of David. Mediator. Law. Torah. Exile. Restoration. I am using the categories Scripture itself gives us in order to understand what God did through Christ. That is an important correction.
2. “Jesus did not come merely to administrate Israel better” - No, He came as the promised Davidic heir, the appointed Messiah, the one God raised, vindicated, and gave authority. I never claimed Jesus came merely to administrate Israel better. I claim he came as Israel’s promised Messiah, the Son of David, the appointed heir, and the one through whom God advances His kingdom purposes. If the Davidic promises are not fulfilled in Jesus’s kingship, then what happened to God’s covenant with David?
3. “Fulfill the Law, satisfy its demands, end its condemning authority” - Satisfy what demands, under what condemning authority, and for whom? You are applying those terms as if Torah had something to do with salvation. Torah was given to Israel as covenant law. So if its condemning authority is being addressed, we must ask who was under that covenant?, who broke it?, who needed redemption from its curse? And how do Gentiles enter the blessing without becoming Israel? Torah’s covenant curse applied to Israel under Torah. The nations were guilty before God, and accountable under God’s universal moral order. The nations were never under Sinai Torah as covenant law, so they were not redeemed from Torah. They are redeemed from sin and death under God’s universal judgment and brought under the authority of His appointed Messiah.
4. “God intended the Law to accomplish…” - Torah was given for Israel to live under YHWH’s kingship as His covenant nation in His land, with His presence among them. You narrow Torah’s purpose to “point to Christ” when actually it was for a nation to live in a holy land as stewards. “Condemn man” but what man? Israel was the only one under it. End at Calvary but for whom? Israel was the only one under it. Torah also formed Israel as a holy nation, ordered the land under YHWH’s rule, established justice and restitution within the land, protected the vulnerable among Israel, regulated priesthood and sanctuary, distinguished Israel from the nations as stewards in the land, revealed YHWH’s wisdom and righteousness as a King over them in example to the nations, and preserved Israel’s covenant identity. Torah does point forward in many ways, but that is not its only purpose. It was and is Israel’s covenant constitution under YHWH as King.
5. "Temporary” proof texts
Galatians 3 - schoolmaster/tutor. A schoolmaster is temporary by definition. Yes, Paul is addressing Torah’s role in relation to Messiah and Israel, and especially Gentile inclusion if the Gentile chooses. But the question is temporary for whom, in what role, and for what purpose? The tutor role does not mean Torah was worthless or that Israel’s promises vanished. It means Torah’s function as guardian of Israel until Messiah is not the basis for Gentile covenant inclusion under it or even to be tutored by it.
Hebrews 7 - change of priesthood, change of law - Yes, Hebrews says priesthood change requires a change of law concerning priestly mediation. But that does not mean every dimension of Israel’s covenant identity disappears or that Torah becomes contemptible. Israel does not depend on a priesthood. That was for God’s dwelling place. Hebrews is heavily priesthood/offering/mediation focused. It does not say Jeremiah 31 is now detached from Israel and Judah.
Hebrews 8 - new covenant makes first old - Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31. Jeremiah defines the covenant parties as Israel and Judah. Therefore Hebrews cannot be used to erase the Israel/Judah covenant context of the passage it quotes. And again, are Gentiles under the old covenant? And if they are not, then there is no new covenant to replace the old one for the Gentiles.
Hebrews 10 - sacrifices are shadows - Yes, the offerings are shadows. But shadow language does not mean all Torah becomes dead, nor does it mean God’s appointed times and covenant signs were meaningless. It means the offering/priestly system pointed beyond itself, not that it disappears. And… God made the promise to Aaron that the priesthood would be forever on earth. Does God keep His promises and covenants? Will the priesthood look different under Jesus’s rule? Absolutely. Will it look different when God comes to rule on earth? Absolutely. But not abolished. Israel remains in covenant with God as God promised, and they will steward in the land as promised.
Romans 10:4 - Christ is end/telos of law for righteousness - Romans 10:4 is about righteousness. I am not arguing Torah provides righteousness for Gentiles or anyone else. Christ is the goal/culmination/end of Torah for righteousness, not to erase Torah’s covenant role for Israel or its witness to God’s moral order.
2 Corinthians 3 - done away - The fading glory of one administration does not give permission to redefine Jeremiah’s covenant parties. Jesus is the new administration, new leadership, under God Himself. Covenant between Israel and God is renewed under that new leadership.
6. “You cannot pretend Sinai is ongoing covenant structure” – And why not? It is not for Gentiles therefore the structure does not encompass them. Sinai/Torah is Israel’s covenant law for their nation. Jeremiah promises covenant renewal with the houses of Israel and Judah. Jesus ratifies that promised renewal under His new leadership under God. The priestly/offering mediation changes through Jesus under His rule. Gentiles are not placed under Sinai Torah so there is no reason for it not to continue for Israel. Israel’s covenant identity and restoration promises are not erased. I am not arguing that Sinai continues unchanged after Jesus. I am arguing that Jesus’s work does not erase Israel, Judah, Torah’s holiness, or the covenant promises God made because He is their King and Messiah.
7. Defense of sharp language. But those rebukes you mention targeted hypocrisy, idolatry, corruption, and false teaching, not sincere reverence for what God gave or for those who choose to follow God under Torah. Keeping their allegiance and loyalty to Him and His Son. Sharp rebuke has a place. But biblical sharpness does not justify misrepresenting another person’s position or using contemptuous language for what God gave Israel. The prophets rebuked Israel for breaking Torah, not for reverencing it.
8. “The Bible is not a graduate seminar in Near Eastern treaty structure”- This is a rhetorical jab which I hear so often in many different ways. The Bible may not be a graduate seminar, but it was written in real historical worlds, using covenant forms, royal language, temple imagery, law codes, land grants, priesthood systems, and restoration promises. But neither is it a collection of free-floating English slogans detached from the world in which God gave them. The Bible was written in history, through cultures, languages, covenants, kings, priests, and prophets. Studying that world is not avoiding Scripture; it is respecting and understanding it in the world that God gave it. And isn't there something in Scripture that says to study to show thyself approved?
9. “Continuing covenant identity system competes with Christ” - Israel’s covenant identity does not compete with Jesus; it is the story into which He was born, the roles He fulfills, and the kingdom framework by which God gives Him authority over the nations. No law set for a nation can compare to Jesus. That is like saying Jesus is the law, but He is not. He administers the law of God’s Kingdom. Jesus is intelligible as Messiah because Moses, Prophets, David, and covenant promises exist.
10. “Where is the nation, Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, throne?” – Dispersed, yes, but awaiting restoration back into the land as stewards according to the covenant between God and Israel. If we say that their absence means they are no longer, then why didn’t it mean that every time they were exiled from the land? Their absence does not prove God abolished His promises. Israel has experienced exile before. Loss of Temple, throne, land administration, and priestly function are covenant judgments, not proof that God dissolved the covenant forever. The prophets repeatedly speak of restoration after judgment. So “where is it now?” is not the same as “God ended it permanently.” And please, tell me what God says in the covenant, in Torah, with Israel what He will do if they rebel? That is a legal binding agreement, and God keeps His Word even if man does not.
11. Colossians 2 and feast/new moon/Sabbath shadows - Paul’s shadow language means these observances point beyond themselves. Of course they did, but it does not mean they were meaningless, dirty, or that God’s calendar was wrong. And if they are abolished, gone, why does it say in Zechariah 14:16 the nations will go to Zion to celebrate Sukkot? Also, Colossians 2:16 says not to let anyone judge you with respect to food/drink/festival/new moon/Sabbath. That is a warning against outsiders judging the community for what they continue to do. It says not to judge them. Why? Perhaps because they, as Israelites, are still obligated under God’s covenant with them to observe them?
12. “Galatians was against Torah identity markers after Christ” - Galatians is very much about Gentiles being pressured to take on Jewish covenant identity markers, especially circumcision, to belong fully. Galatians supports the point that Gentiles do not have to become Jews or come under Torah identity markers. It does not prove Torah was abolished for Israel or that Jeremiah’s Israel/Judah covenant became a Gentile church covenant. Thank you for proving my point on that.
If we as Christ followers are to live by the Torah law how do you explain in Acts where Peter has a vision where God tells him no animal or person is unclean? Also we see in Acts physical circumcision is no longer needed. I would like to understand your thinking on why God started changing the law in the book of Acts but yet we as disciples of Jesus should go back to the Torah law the New Testament changed.
Hello Casey. Thank you for your questions. I few years ago I was exactly where you are, asking the very same questions. I will provide short explanations here but will refer you to previous pieces that I have written for more detailed explanations. As far as Peter's vision in acts, the sheet that came down three times because three gentiles were about to come knocking. Inside of the sheet were "all" kinds of animals, both clean and unclean (Acts 10:12). Peter had options to "kill and eat" a clean animal. The Jews had a mistaken belief that clean in proximity to unclean would cause the clean to become unclean (as in being in the sheet rubbing against each other). This false understanding also applied to Jew and Gentile and can be clearly seen in John 18:28 where those prosecuting Yeshua/Jesus would not enter the Roman governor's house so as to not be defiled so they could eat the Passover that evening. It was about proximity. That is the lesson Peter needed to learn. This was never about food, Peter had options.
Next, I reject the premise that the Law/Torah changed in the New Testament. In order for that to happen, we must call God a liar when He said in Malachi 3:6, "I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed." He does not change. Then you must call Yeshua/Jesus a liar as only a few pages later He said in Matther 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Fulfill does not mean terminate; He just said He wouldn't do that. All things have not been accomplished. Heaven and earth have not disappeared. So, to believe it changed means we must call the One we profess to worship a liar. Not a good starting point.
I do believe that you are arguing that Acts 15 is arguing that circumcision is not necessary "to be saved." That is true. We like to remove the "to be saved" part. Turn the page to Acts 16 and find Paul circumcising Timothy. It isn't a sin to be circumcised. Acts 15 gives the new Gentile believers four commandments to begin their discipleship journey. Consider Acts 15:21 says, "For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” I will restate that: The new believers are expected to be in the synagogue every Sabbath where they will learn the rest of the Torah. They didn't have their own copies of the Scriptures; they had to go somewhere that they could hear it, the synagogue. You have access to the Scriptures in the palm of your hand.
I recommended considering "A Bible Reading Plan" https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan
Then "Easter of Passover" https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/easter-or-passover
It does take a lot more than short articles to fully articulate where modern day western Christianity lost its way. I wrote one: "Blessings and Curses: if my people..." https://blessingsandcursesbook.com
Shalom.
HERE IT IS IN VIVID TECHNICOLOR
Even Islam is awaiting the 2nd comming of Jesus. This is the EASIEST WAY TO DEMONSTRATE that ISLAM IS FALSE. It is really just a knostic "remix" with a different name & a cult of personality that initiated it.
THE POPE & ALL modern day VICARS ,prophets et al SDA, LDS-Mormons, JW EVEN muslims all FRAUDS waiting for the 2nd comming 🤣🤡🌏🤣
THE OLD SONG OF MOSES v THE NEW SONG OF THD LAMB......"GET IT" YET?!?
SONG OF MOSES:
Deut 4:26 ye shall soon UTTERLY PERISH ... but shall UTTERLY be ⚠️DESTROYED⚠️...30 When thou art in 🚨TRIBULATION🚨 and ALL THESE THINGS COME UPON THEE, even in ⏰THE LATTER DAYS⏰...
Deut 30:1.....WHEN ALL THESE THINGS ARE COME.. THE 🎯BLESSING🎯 and THE 🚨CURSE🚨,....19. Now therefore WRITE YE 🎶THIS SONG🎶... .20. ....and break my covenant. 21.when many evils and 🚨TROUBLES🚨 ...🎶THIS SONG🎶 SHALL TESTIFY AGAINST THEM AS A WITNESS; ...: 22. MOSES THEREFORE WROTE 🎶THIS SONG🎶 the same day.
Deut 31 :29..EVIL .⏰THE LATTER DAYS⏰
Deut 32:17. They 👹SACRIFICED UNTO DEVILS👹, (PS 106:35-37 & Rev 9:20) ..43. REJOICE, O ye nations,.. for HE WILL AVENGE THE BLOOD OF HIS SERVANTS, and will RENDER 🚨VENGEANCE🚨(Luke 21:22)..... 44..Moses.. spake 🎶ALL THE WORDS OF THIS SONG🎶
THIS IS WHY THEY PERSECUTED JESUS. THEY DID NOT PERSECUTE JESUS BECAUSE HE PREACHED "DO GOOD DEEDS"
WHAT DID CHRIST PREACH? 👇
Luke 4:18/ Isaiah 61:1… The spirit of the Lord is upon me ......TO PROCLAIM acceptable ⏰YEAR OF THE LORD⏰ and THE DAY OF 🚨VENGEANCE🚨
Lk 21: 20. And WHEN YE SHALL SEE ⚠️JERUSALEM COMPASSED⚠️ WITH ARMIES, THEN KNOW THAT THE ⚠️DESOLATION⚠️ THEREOF IS NIGH .... 22. THESE BE THE DAYS OF 🚨VENGEANCE,🚨 that ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN MAY BE 💪FULLFILLED💪... 28 ....for your 🎯REDEMPTION🎯 DRAWETH NIGH
They thought Messiah was going to kill everyone who was not a Biological jew in Israel, but Gods "humor" was to destroy all biological jews & START ANEW WITH JUST JESUS "THE SEED" (💥 Rembember God wanted to start over with just moses at Mt Sini But Moses pleaded with God.💥)
⛔DANIEL 9) CONFIRMATION CONSUMATION & LAW CHANGED⛔
👉(💥A💥).. ⚠️DESTROY⚠️... CITY . SANCTUARY... THE END THEREOF SHALL BE WITH A 💦FLOOD💦 💥 (Mat 24 :39 ..until the 💦FLOOD💦 CAME ...so shall.. coming of..Son of man)
Nahum 1: 2... LORD REVENGETH; ....WILL TAKE 🚨VENGEANCE🚨...5. 🔥🌏THE MOUNTAINS QUAKE ...THE HILLS MELT, AND THE EARTH IS BURNED.. THE WORLD, AND ALL THAT DWELL THEREIN🔥🌏...7..IN 🚨THE DAYOF TROUBLE;🚨 ...8...AN OVERRUNNING 💦FLOOD💦... MAKE AN UTTER ⚠️END OF THE PLACE⚠️...10 ...THEY.. DEVOURED AS STUBBLE FULLY DRY...15... THE FEET OF HIM THAT BRINGETH 😇GOOD TIDINGS, THAT PUBLISHETH PEACE!😇
1 Peter 4:7...🔥🌏END OF ALL THINGS IS ST HAND🔥🌏....17 TIME IS COME that JUDGMENT must BEGIN (not end)
👉1 Corinthians 10:7 Neither be ye 👹IDOLATERS👹,.. 11...they are written for our admonition, upon whom 🔥🌏THE ENDS OF THE WORLD ARE COME🔥🌏20 ... the Gentiles sacrifice, they 👹SACRIFICE to DEVILS👹
👉(💥B💥) …UNTO THE END OF THE WAR ⚠️DESOLATIONS⚠️ ARE DETERMINED. 27.. shall ✝️🎶CONFIRM THE COVENANT🎶✝️ WITH MANY FOR ONE WEEK:
1) Rev 1:7.. cometh with clouds.👁👁EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM.. THEY ALSO WHICH PIERCED HIM👁👁... (Acts 2:5) THE EARTH SHALL 💧WAIL💧 BECAUSE OF HIM.
Zech 12:1.. ⚠️WHEN THEY SHALL BE IN THE SIEGE⚠️.. 6. IN THAT DAY....👁👁THEYSHALL LOOK UPON ME WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED👁👁, THEY SHALL 💧MOURN💧 ..11. A GREAT MOURNING IN JERUSALEM...INTHE VALLEY OF ☢☠MEGIDDON*☠☢
Rev 16:14 For they are the 👹SPIRITS OF DEVILS👹 working miracles, ... to☢☠GATHER THEM TO BATTLE☠☢of ⏰THAT GREAT DAY⏰ Almighty. 15. I COME AS A THIEF. .. 16. And HE GATHERED THEM....☢☠ARMAGEDDON☠☢
Zech 14:1. THE ⏰DAY OF THE LORD⏰ COMETH, .. 2.... GATHER ALL NATIONS....⚠️THE CITY SHALL BE TAKEN⚠️
👉(💥A💥) …IN THE MIDST OF THE WEEK (AD 70)... CAUSE THE 🎶SACRIFICE🎶 AND.. ⛔🎶OBLATION TO CEASE🎶⛔
Heb 7 :12..the PRIESTHOOD being ⛔CHANGED,⛔ there is made of necessity a ⛔CHANGE⛔ also of the LAW...
THE SONG OF THE LAMB
Psalms 40:3...he hath put ✝️🎶A NEW SONG✝️🎶 in my mouth,..6 ⛔Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; .. burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.⛔ 7....Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
👉(💥B💥) …MAKE IT ⚠️DESOLATE⚠️, EVEN UNTIL THE 🎯CONSUMMATION🎯
👉1 Cor 13:8 PROPHECIES.. FAIL.. TONGUES,.. CEASE....10 🎯WHEN THAT WHICH IS PERFECT IS COME🎯, then that which is in part shall be done away
FURTHER, IF HEAVEN & EARTH HAS NOT PASSED AWAY THEN THE LAW OF MOSES IS STILL REQUIRED & IN EFFECT NOW!?!
Mat 5:18.....🔥🌏Till HEVEAN AND EARTH PASS🔥🌏 one jot...shall in no wise pass from the law, 💪TILL ALL BE FULLFILLED💪
The earth that burned up & pass away was a people-> Israel NOT a planet!! Man is made of EARTH..... Its not UR world or world of the Maya that was to burn up melt & pass away with a great noise... Popular ideas of Jesus return & "the last day" is from theological Nimrods. 🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305366745/Revelation-the-First-Gospel-of-the-Kingdom
https://www.academia.edu/23464127/REVELATION_THE_FIRST_GOSPEL_OF_THE_KINGDOM
There is a lot of misunderstanding in this. It is also hard to follow, and Yeshua stopped short in Luke 4:18, He did NOT say "The Day of vengeance..." That is for his second coming. You should probably start over. May I recommend this: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan
Hey, John, try not to spend too much time answering this person. He has hit several of my articles in comments with the same exact word-for-word comments on all of them. And he just keeps it up as one continues answering him.
Context, its not just a side not its the punch line ….. the new covenant is directly related to the 2nd comming in AD 70……
🤣🤣😳
John,
I will try to keep this short and succinct. There is just so much to say that it may be difficult.
There is much I agree with you on, such as the timeline of the two resurrections - before and after the 1,000 year reign; the ultimate effect of the absolute righteousness, good-heartedness, and the deep and true knowing of God, of those who are in the new covenant; and that the message of Yeshua has been hijacked by a religious system of churches that (broadly speaking, and not necessarily talking about every individual involved in that system) bears fruit contraindicating involvement in that glorious, promised new covenant. These things, to me, are indisputable.
The important adjective describing this covenant is the word "new." As you said, the new covenant is clearly a different covenant, because God said that it would not be like the old. It was substantatively new and different. But, as our glorious God has done with various words and concepts throughout the ages, He has laid out breadcrumbs of phrases with "new" in them, to awaken the hearts of mankind as to His glorious plans.
In fact, what our great God has done, is doing, and will finish up with glorious consummation, in and by the wonderful man, Yeshua, can be summed up in this word "new."
(By the way, I will use the from-Hebrew version of the King's name, "Yeshua," in deference to your preference, instead of the Hebrew->Greek->German->English version, "Jesus." As long as we are all clear on who we are talking about -- this most awesome man, Yeshua the anointed King and priest, now being the new man, having become complete/perfect through death, resurrection, and then exulation to the right hand of the glorious God -- I am fine with that. However, I strongly object to using Saul (or Sha'ul), his Hebrew birth name, instead of Paul (or Paulus/Paulos), his Latin nickname, because that is what his contemporaries called him -- even Peter (though Paul called Peter by his Hebrew nickname). To use Sha'ul just seems like a clickish thing to do -- it adds no true value to the discussion.)
In Isaiah and Jeremiah, God doing something "new" was a frequent theme. He even said that He would call Zion by a "new name" (Isaiah 62:2), when it was full of righteousness and glory. "New things I now declare" (Isaiah 42:9; 43:19 is similar). This is right after that He said that the Servant (the same as the suffering servant, Isaiah 53, who bears our sins and sicknesses, and, although He was childless before death, gives birth to those born in His image by way of suffering the "birthpangs of death" - Isaiah 53:10) would be the Covenant (Isaiah 42:6; also, 49:8). Yeshua is the new covenant.
Yeshua is the new covenant!
He became this through His blood -- by death and resurrection. He is the covenant document! His very being describes the agreement, sealed by a blood covenant, that makes the people be in line with God, so they can have a God/people relationship that the people are totally in line with. The very life of Yeshua Himself -- the first and only fully righteous man, now the firstborn of many to come -- operating inside those who obey Him (operating by the Holy Spirit imparting His righteous, just, believing and loving nature into the very fabric of their being). The Holy Spirit imparts His dying, and his rising, so that, as Peter said, "we can die to sin and live to righteousness/justness."
We become new through the resurrection of Yeshua, by the Holy Spirit flowing from His exalted, righteous human nature. Thus (and this is the only way the following can happen, and why Yeshua is the only way for anyone to be able to come to the Father), we become new humans (the "one new man") by faith in His resurrection, and by receiving the Holy Spirit flowing to us through Yeshua's resurrected and glorified human nature. This is HOW God gives us a new spirit and a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26, and 18:31).
There is much to say about this newness -- this "newness of life" -- but, this will have to suffice for now, with but one remaining comment to follow. I discuss how this "new thing" that God has done, as well as the new covenant, how we find the truth, etc., in some relevant articles: "How Do We Find the Truth," "The Ten Commandments," "Understanding Hell," and "Understanding Hell, Part 2 -- Resurrection and Judgment." These can be found at http://theGreatnessOfJesus.com. Note that it is http, not https (I don't sell anything, so I do not need a secure website; browsers these days sometimes object to the http, however). (Perhaps of side interest would be the article, "Forgiveness Through Blood," which discusses the Ezekiel passages above.) These are all about the awesome work God has done in Yeshua, and how they work out, as His reign as King continues as time unfolds, until, at the consummation of all His works, He makes ALL THINGS NEW. The hope of believers in Yeshua is that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, in which righteousness/justness dwells, and Yeshua ushers in that state where "God is all in all." That is the glorious end of His reign as the anointed King! God's good nature and wisdom and knowledge and love and ways are everthing in everyone!
The main question, then, is WHEN does the new covenant commence? The key to understanding this is in your statement, "I do believe there will be a partial fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 for those that are raised and transformed at Messiah's second coming." Clearly, those who partake of the first resurrection in the Messiah's royal presence (His coming), will be, as you say, experiencing that new covenant. They will be raised, made immortal, and sin and death will have no power over them. They will have a powerful ministry for those thousand years!! What a time that will be! They will be righteous/just/good/holy (completely), and will know YHVH thoroughly. But, as you indicate, this is not yet the "all" of Jeremiah 31. But they are the first ones ushered in; others will follow. In the end of Yeshua's reign, no sin, death, unbelief, or unrighteousness will be left anywhere. "Behold, I make ALL NEW," Yeshua said.
So, the new covenant begins to work before the ultimate-effects are seen. That is the key. It began with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit into those prepared among his people, in roughly 30 CE. This is when the new covenant, Yeshua himself (who "IS OUR LIFE"), was written into the fabric of the Jewish followers' inner beings, with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, flowing out from Yeshua's glorified and righteous humanity. In Him they died to sin, and became alive to righteousness/justness/goodness. His powerful being had a powerful effect in them. Yet, they were babes in this new life, but grew up as time went by. The new covenant -- the Word within their being -- transformed them and made them new. They were a firstfruits of the creation -- the first fruits of the newness taking over the world. Since then, the outworking of this new Covenant, Yeshua in those who obey Him, has been growing. It will grow until the assemby (the new Israel, the chosen generation, the royal priesthood, the holy nation - the society of the saints, being the firstruits in the Kingdom of God) becomes the "glorious assembly, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing," and through them the whole earth becomes full of the glory of God (Numbers 14:21, Isaiah 11:9, Habakkuk 2:15). This is what paves the way for the coming of Yeshua.
The new covenant -- Yeshua written into the being of the holy nation, the assembly of the new Israel (comprised of those of Israel by natural birth who believe Yeshua, and those of the nations grafted in by faith in and obedience to this anointed King of this holy nation) -- is what defines who comprises this new people, the assembly, the people of God (I Peter 2:9-10). This new covenant commenced the compilation of this new nation, through whom God will make Himself known, and through whom He will judge the nations (I Cor. 6:1-3), and through whom He will bring all into subjection to Yeshua and make all things new. They -- by the glory of God -- will set the whole creation free (Romans 8:18-23).
The covenant works and grows until the ultimate fulfillment is finished, and all are righteous and all know God thoroughly. Yeshua is this covenant. Yeshua is THE Word. Yeshua is the law. Yeshua is the new Torah. Yeshua is the revelation of God to man (Hebrews 1:2). God has spoken many glorious words as time moved along. His Torah (including the heart of it, the Ten Words/Ten Commandments), are a glorious revelation of what He wants his people to do and be, and of the relationship He wants to have with them. But the greater and better Word, of which the Torah and the prophets began to give a glimpse into, is the Word Himself -- the very speaking of YHVH, the image of the invisible God. All the words before Yeshua were a little hazy compared to the greater speaking of God in His son. In Yeshua, we now get exactness. He is the "express image of His [God's] person." This cannot happen by mere human descriptions and explanations. It takes the Holy Spirit lifting us up into the heavenly realms, into the realms of God, and there having spirit-to-spirit communion with the Son, and through Him spirit-to-spirit communion with His Father, and come to know Him by direct union and flowing in His being. This is the significance of the gift of the Holy Spirit, who could not be given until Yeshua died, rose, and was glorified. "The Spirit was not yet given, because Yeshua was not yet glorified" (John 7:39). "Being therefore exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise fo the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this that you are seeing and hearing" (Acts 2:33).
I had to cut off my last three paragraphs, since it was beyond some limit. I will wait to post them until I get your permission. I just wanted to let you know, because it might seem slightly incomplete as it is -- though much of what I wanted to say has been said.
Hello John. I can see that you put a lot of time and effort into your response. I appreciate you adding to the conversation. I like to keep things simple since YHVH is not a God of confusion. Yeshua’s first coming was not as the Messiah. His first coming was to fulfill Deuteronomy 18:15-19. He is “the Prophet” like Moses. A prophet’s job is to speak the words of YHVH and to call people back to YHVH and the covenant. He did exactly that by “renewing” the covenant from Sinai. His death and resurrection paid the penalty due, but did not remove the requirements of the Torah. He taught Torah. He said Torah would not be done away with (Matthew 5:17-19). You wrote “new Torah.” Where do you find that in Jeremiah 31? There is one Torah, we do not get to create new ones. God will not create a new one as He said in Deuteronomy 4:2, do not add to or subtract from the Torah; it was perfect when He gave it and you cannot improve upon perfect. I am sticking with the case that I made. The New Covenant is not here yet. It cannot come until He can make it with “the House of Israel” and “the House of Judah.” Israel, properly defined, (https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/have-you-considered-this-israel) doesn’t even know who they are. I will also stick with when it is fulfilled, that “all” means “all,” without exception, everyone living, it will be after the Great White Throne Judgement where those who chose to NOT be part of Israel (grafted or re-grafted in) will be thrown into the lake of fire (still 1000 years in our future). We are still teaching because we still do not know Him. You and I having this conversation actually proves that definitively; you are trying to teach me and I am trying to teach you. I do believe that it would be beneficial to you to spend some time in the other articles that I have on my Stack. Consider “The Ten Commandments” https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/have-you-considered-this-the-ten. Consider “Easter or Passover” https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/easter-or-passover. Those are good and free, others would be beneficial. I highly recommend my book Blessings & Curses: if my people… that allows me to go much deeper into the story from Genesis to Revelation: https://blessingsandcursesbook.com.
Please feel free to add whatever else you feel is necessary in the conversation for others that find this to consider. That is the point of this Substack!
I think I will add the last three paragraphs, because to me they complete the thought I wanted to share. Here they are:
Yeshua told His disciples that up until that time (just before His death and resurrection) he had spoken to them in "figures of speech," but that soon He would speak plainly of the Father. What is this plain/clear/precise speaking? It is when He tells us of the Father, making known the Father, in the divine nature -- a thing of experiencing God beyond thinking, meditating, and hearing human explanations -- it is seeing the nature and being of God by the divine nature itself, now joined to our spirit. We have become children of God, as John said. We have become partakers of the divine nature, as Peter said. He partook of our nature, Hebrews says, so that we can now partake of His nature. THIS is how we become righteous/just/holy -- by a change of nature, and resulting transformation, coming to us in the flow of the power of the Holy Spirit imparting Yeshua's God-filled humanity into our humanity. Thus, we get clear and full experiencing of God directly.
THIS is Yeshua as the Word within our being! This is the "new" and greater Word! The Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, the Gospel accounts, the writings of the apostles, etc., are all terribly significant. But, The Word is greater than it all combined. These all speak roughly, and partially, of all the good things our Father wants us to know, do, and live. In the New Covenant, the "new" Word (who has always been the Word, but now is the Word in human form, and, better yet, is now, through death and resurrection, written into our humanity), we get the best and most accurate (and the only EFFECTIVE) word of all.
So, Yeshua is the Word, the Covenant, the Temple of the new covenant, the high priest of the new covenant (after the order of Melchizedek), the passover Lamb, the sin sacrifice, the priest offering the sacrifice, the fire of the altar, the King sitting on the new and greater Mount Zion, in the New Jerusalem, in the mountains of God's holiness. We are the firstfruits of God's creation (James 1:18), born of this Word. The new Covenant is what makes us His people, and only those who agree to the new Covenant by bowing the knee to Yeshua and willingly losing their own life (as Yeshua did His), being crucified with Him by the operation of the Holy Spirit, are members of the new Israel. That is how we become grafted in. And, this covenant will continue to do its work until all becomes new, because "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Yeshua, the Anointed, is Lord."
New and living way
I would not correct you in any of this. As a Gentile grafted in to the commonwealth of Israel, I cannot understand why we would believe that the same thing expected of Israel is not expected for the adopted children. Nor do I understand that we “have” to keep Torah. But because we love the Father and Son, we obey. In the Book of Revelation, we’re told that those who will be saved are those who keep the commandments of Yeshua. Why would I want to skip that? Thank you for your writing! I loved it! Yah bless!
Thank you for your kind words. I will add, “who wouldn’t want to be called great in the kingdom by keeping and teaching Yah’s commandments?” (Matthew 5:19)
Amen!!
Father, in Jesus name, wake him up!
Am I to take it that you think I am incorrect in what I wrote? If so, I would ask you to post a coherent argument making your points to clarify where I am wrong. I would also ask that you do it without using the much misunderstood Paul.
No, you're fine. I read over it again.
The Apostles and the 1st century Christian’s were from the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Jesus told them that He would return in their lifetime. Matt 16:27-28 Matt 24:34. So if He hasn’t returned yet, doesn’t that make Jesus a false prophet?
I would like to know how you know the genealogy of all twelve Apostles. Yeshua’s ministry was in Judah. Israel was scattered. The odds are they were all from either Judah, Benjamin, or Levi, the tribes that make up the kingdom of Judah.
You either terribly misunderstand the verses that you cite to say that He told them that He would return in their lifetimes, or you are intentionally trying to be deceitful. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you just misunderstand. I will clarify.
Matthew 16:27-28 was fulfilled and I can do it with one word: Revelation. John saw and wrote about it. Verse 28 says “some who are standing here.” “Some” is defined as “an indeterminate number.” One saw before he died. Fulfilled.
Plucking Matthew 23:34 out of context is intellectually dishonest. Looking back at verse 32 you will see that this is a parable. The “this generation” that would not pass away was the generation that saw the things the parable spoke of, and it would only be the people actually hearing this parable if those things happened in their lifetimes. They did not.
Yeshua is not a false prophet, he is “the Prophet” spoken of my Moses in Deuteronomy 18. Go read that chapter and then read John 1 when John the Baptist was asked about “that prophet.”
Never call Him a false prophet again!
Okay 👌
God is revealing the truth! Test the Spirits to see if they are true. Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-20; Matthew 26:17-29 all tell us that the last supper was indeed the Passover that Jesus ate with His Disciples. The Passover day starts the evening before the day in God’s calendar. But with this exception to this article I will have to agree with the Torah being the “New Covenant “ written on our hearts and minds. For Jesus eluded to this in Matthew 5:17-20. Here’s a book that should be read as well. Available at Amazon or Barnes and Nobles.
Hi Ben. Thank you for reading. I used to be confused about the verses you use to say that the Last Supper was a Passover. The Bible itself says that it was not. We need to understand the chronology of what was happening, what God had commanded in the Torah. I don't think you followed the link where I wrote that it was not a Passover because that would take you to the previous article that I wrote that provided the correct chronology and Scripture to prove that it was not. The translations that we read in the Gospels that you site were translated by people that didn't understand the Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish context of the events transpiring. They did their best, but they missed the mark. Please consider: https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/easter-or-passover. I think you will be amazed at the actual story. You will even find out where the 24 elders we are introduced to in Revelation come from. (I don't see that you actually included the book that you mentioned). Shalom
I’m aware of God’s timeline and calendar, and Jesus Himself told the Disciples that He desired to eat the Passover meal with them before He was to suffer as our Passover Lamb. Leviticus 23 lays out God’s feasts, and Genesis 1 lays out God’s day. I don’t agree with your analogy with the Last Supper, but I enjoyed reading your article.
God’s blessings brother. 🙏🏻👆🏼
I thought I understood the calendar but did not. I now understand better. It is not all about the calendar so much as what was happening at the Temple as well. In the article I referenced, I address your very point about how He desired to eat the Passover meal with them. You would be blessed to read it and then decide if I am still incorrect. Shalom.
http://www.cgsf.org/dbeattie/calendar/?roman=28
According to this calendar which is accurate this article is incorrect because the Passover is not on a Wednesday it is on a Monday that year. The years that work are in my book “Remember the Sabbath” which are 30 AD or 31 AD for the year Jesus was sacrificed and rose from the dead. The Sabbath is the day Jesus Rose from the Dead and has been changed to the first day of the week by the translators for the Roman Catholics who are the ones that produced the first translations. The Greek translation of the word in every account is the First of the Sabbaths which corresponds to Leviticus 23 and the count down to the festival of First Fruits which we labeled Pentecost. Keep digging brother, you’re on the right track with a few mistakes. Dig into the History of the Bible and the Roman Catholic Churches influence upon it. The First Fruits wave is an interesting timeline, but it doesn’t really fit with what the original language tells us about the day of the week. Nonetheless Jesus is the First Fruits of men.
Hi Ben, I appreciate your study and insight. It is a stretch to actually say any calculated calendar "is accurate." Without correlating evidence as to what exact day that a month actually started, the best we have is a calculation as to when the moon should have been visible, not when it was visible. Too many atmospheric variables to calculate that it was visible. The other issues is that we are trying to determine the first month which means we are trying to determine if the barley was aviv at the new moon. There is no way to calculate that, so we do not know if there was a thirteenth month necessary or not. It is a best guess as to what might have been. This is the calculated calendar that I use: https://torahcalendar.com/Calendar.asp?YM=Y28M1. On this calendar the prior year was calculated to be only 12 months. If an Ader Bet was necessary that year, then if you go to the second month (which would have then been the first month) then everything lines up just as I wrote. YHVH isn't going to make it easy, we have to search with all of our hearts if we are to find Him. Look beyond the calculated to what else was possible and how that fits what was happening. I fully agree with you that Yeshua rose at the very end of the Sabbath day, not the first day of the week. First Fruits is always on the first day of the week, being the day after the regular weekly Sabbath during the Feast of Unleavened Bread which then begins the counting of the Omer leading the Shavuot, or sometimes called the Feast of Weeks. There is a First Fruits of the barley offering during Unleavened Bread and then there is a First Fruits of the wheat harvest offering at Shavuot. Two different first fruits. Yeshua is the First Fruits as Paul says, but that is not how He fulfilled that Feast during Unleavened Bread. The Feast was an offering; He was the High Priest making the offering of those that came out of the grave after He rose from the dead that were seen by many and never heard from again. They were the First Fruits offering. They are now sitting on 24 thrones just and John saw in Revelation. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another!
I found this difficult to digest as you have used no SPS, and no chapters/headings.
Also, are you suggesting his God?
YHVH said in Malachi 3:6 that He does not change. The writer of Hebrews says that “Yeshua Messiah is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Time has nothing to do with a God that exists outside of space/time. Take Him at his word. The story is much more than is preached in the Christian church. You would do well to consider my book where I have detailed what I think; it took 220 pages to do it, not a comment section of a blog post. Https://www.blessingsandcursesbook.com.
You say, Take Him at his word.
Why do you not take Jesus at his word who said the Father is the only true God?
We do not need a book of excuses and complex theology to understand who God is, who the God of Jesus is.
Fisherman could understand this simple truth.
Are you arguing for polytheism? Plesae explain what you believe about Jesus.
If it were simple I wouldn’t have said “Am I the only one that sees this?” It is my style and it is telling a story. It is challenging a lot of long held beliefs and probably will take several readings to really comprehend and follow the logic and validate the Scriptures. I don’t understand your final question.
Do you think Jesus is God?
In John 1 It says “and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” The Word is Yeshua, so absolutely YES. Yeshua also said “If you have seen Me you have seen the Father,” as well as “I and the Father are one.” I do write a little deeper on that in my prior article “Easter or Passover”
John isn’t talking about Jesus. Jesus is not the word until it becomes flesh. That’s why he says, ‘in the beginning’ was the word. If he wanted to say it was Jesus we would be reading that.
The Word became flesh and tabernacles among us. Of course that is Yeshua. John never wrote Jesus but you read that. https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/easter-or-passover
You are completely ignoring the time element. What do you think happened when IT became flesh ?
I have been pondering Jeremiah 31 for a while and always wondered about who the convent was made with. It wasn’t gentiles according to Jeremiah 31, so it never made sense to me.
The only thing I don’t agree with is Yeshua because equal to YHWH in a Greek metaphysical sense. I don’t believe in the trinity as most do, which is plagued with Greek influence.
I believe Yeshua when he says the Father is greater than I, and there is one true God and one Father. Paul affirms this also in 1 Cor. 8:6
Great article and it has me thinking! Thank you.
Thank you for your response. I agree with you on the trinity. For your consideration on the Yeshua/YHVH issue I suggest John1 and Zechariah 14. John 1 says that the Word (Yeshua) made flesh created all things. Genesis 2:4 says YHVH created. Zechariah discusses what most people call the war of Armageddon which we say happens at Yeshua's second coming. In Zechariah, the name YHVH is all over the text hidden behind "the LORD." I appreciate that this made you think; that is the goal.
I joined Heretics Anonymous as I am one as well.
Yes! I believe that Yeshua was divine, but I’ve been studying from an agency/functional sense, not Greek ontological.
He embodied the creative Word of GOD, but not as a separate entity. The wisdom of proverbs 8 was also at creation, but it’s not a separate entity – it is an extension of Yahweh himself.
Anyways, I’m learning to understand how a Hebrew would understand John 1.
Thank you for subscribing! I tried to follow you, but I couldn’t find a button to do so.
There are Subscribe buttons throughout the article. You can subscribe for free.
And yet, the Father glorifies the Son in the end.
I don’t understand the point you are making in the context of what I wrote. Please expand.
How do gentiles follow all of Torah? The Torah was given to Israelites at mount Sinai. The covenant was with them. How do gentiles adhere to Torah in 21st century? Jews can’t even follow Torah without a temple right?
Although Acts 15 does lay out requirements for gentiles to adhere to.
We cannot do all of the Torah. No one has ever been able to keep all of the Torah, and no one was ever expected to do all of the Torah. Some things only apply to Priests. Some only to Levites. Some only to women and others only to men. Some only applied to farmers. It never all applied to anyone. Some of the Torah require a functioning Temple/Tabernacle and Levitical Priesthood. Obviously, those cannot be kept at this current time. But, because some can't be kept, we are without excuse for those that we can keep. Consider Luke 1:6, about Zechariah and Elizabeth, "Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly." There are two mere mortals that could keep Torah. Zechariah was a priest so the requirements on him were drastically increased relative to the common man, yet he was blameless. It can be done. Consider YHVH's own words in Deuteronomy 30:11, "For this commandment I give you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." YHVH says we can do it. Do we call Him a liar? I did write a book that discusses this and will make you think about a lot of other things: Blessings & Curses: if my people... https://blessingsandcursesbook.com. Shalom
Never mind Sergio sent me a really good explanation of how gentiles can honor Torah.
How is that?
My friend sent me this. Would love to hear your thoughts.
When he says both he’s referring to the new covenant as a suzerian style vow made on his dead body by YHWH - he was faithful to death, and Jeremiah 31.
“Yeshua’s words over the cup are not separate from Jeremiah 31. They are his claim that Jeremiah 31 is being inaugurated through his sacrificial death. The fact that Jeremiah’s promise is not yet universally consummated in every visible sense does not mean it has not begun. It means the new covenant is already established in Messiah and not yet exhausted in history. Gentiles fit not as an afterthought but as those brought into Israel’s promised blessing through union with the faithful Messiah. So yes, it can be both. More than that, it has to be both, because the blood of the supper is precisely how the promised covenant becomes historically operative.”
2,000 years and the world looks nothing like the promises of that covenant. The world, or should I say the Christian world, wants the Mt. Sinai covenant to be null and void which helps sell that the Torah is "ended." The world is so much easier when you can distill it down to the greatest commandments summarized as "Love God and Love others." It works when you can define what that looks like. When Yeshua answered that question He said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Most people like to leave the last sentence off when quoting this. The Law [Torah] and the prophets are the "how to" of the first two commandments. Yeshua also said in Matthes 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." It is common for the word "fulfill" to be interpreted as "end." That doesn't go with the next sentence when He said that "until heaven and earth pass away." I made my case. I used scripture to back it up. "For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it." Few are going to find this. The world is going to fight it. That is what Scripture says. You might also want to consider my prior article "Easter or Passover" where I discuss "the cup."
Hello Jerry, I would like to recommend to you my prior post "A Bible Reading Plan." https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/a-bible-reading-plan. In that you will find that you will never understand Paul until you understand what Paul read. There was no NT that Paul could consult. Everything He wrote has its roots in the OT/Tanakh. Read that plan for the "why."
Next big issue here is allowing the Bible translators to deceive you about the church. Consider that at Mt. Sinai, it was the "qahal" assembled at Mt. Sinai, the Israelites. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew "qahal" to the Greek "ekklesia." English translations that translate the Hebrew "qahal" translate it to either "assembly" or "congregation." The is the OT/Tanakh. Move to the NT and "ekklesia" is translated as "church." Why the inconsistency. "Ekklesia" should be consistently translated as "assembly" or "congregation." Why was this done in the NT? There was an agenda to create something new, a church. I do explain all of this in my book, available on my Stack.
The Lord's Supper and its history prior to the Last Supper, is fully explained in my piece "Easter or Passover" https://www.haveyouconsideredthis.com/p/easter-or-passover.
Shalom