Sunday, April 26, 2015

The Nation of Avraham [UPDATED]





Every now and then I feel obliged to make a comment on James Pyles' blog.  This morning, reading the comments section to James' post entitled "The Consequences of Being Chosen", I felt obliged to respond to the blogger known as "Sojourning with Jews."  Here's my response (which, depending on James' whimsical censorship, may or may not ever show up):

"Sojourning with Jews", 
RE:  "Biblically, Gentiles are not capable of ritually impurity, only those God Covenanted with, i.e., descendants of Jacob, are." 
This is patently false.  It is written that the Torah shall apply both to the native Israelite and also the ger (sojourner).  It does NOT say "one law shall apply to the native and also to the sojourner--provided that the sojourner is a physical descendant of Jacob." 
The "Children of Israel" (i.e. the family of G-d) includes more than just the physical descendants.  It includes the non-physically-descended gerim as well.  G-d tells faithful gerim that they are imputed kin who may consider Avraham as their father.  And, lest you say that kinship may only be imputed to the circumcised, it is written:  "...And he [Avraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised..." (Romans 4:11).  
Avraham is the father of the nation of Israel because it says "Ve'e'escha legoy" (Gen. 12:2).  It literally says that G-d will make Avraham a "nation."  Here we see that a "nation" is a "family".  In the case of the nation of Israel, the family consists of all those who may rightly call Avraham their father.  
UPDATE:

The conversation continues.

James:
Peter, I believe you’re oversimplifying the “one law for all” statement and taking it out of context. I’ve already responded to that line of thinking here.
Peter:
James, 
Actually, that post doesn’t respond to any of the points I raised. Furthermore, your linked post introduces Lancaster’s belief that Gentiles may take a pair of scissors to the Torah and cut out any laws that they deem “ceremonial.” Problem is, Torah doesn’t give anyone permission to commit that type of sacrilege. Nor does it divide into moral and immoral commands as Lancaster’s borrowed language supposes (he wasn’t the first to propose that Torah divides in moral, ceremonial, and civil commands). In fact, all evidence indicates that the Torah is an indivisible and interdependent legal SYSTEM (LINK). 
James:
Peter, I was addressing the broad application of “one size fits all” you apply to Jews and Gentiles as if there’s no difference between them relative to covenant. As you well know, I disagree that Gentile believers are simply Jews without a bris. That said, to the degree that we will one day be offering Korban in the Temple built by Messiah, the question to be asked is if we will be determined to be clean/unclean in the manner of a Jewish person?
Peter:
James, 
Re: “…the question to be asked is if we will [Gentiles] be determined to be clean/unclean in the manner of a Jewish person?” 
If there’s only one law for the community (“hakahal chukah achat”, Num. 15:15) then you have your answer. 
Proclaim Liberty to Peter:
     Also, Peter (adding to James’ response above), HaShem granted to Avraham to become a father of many nations, but they were not all to be counted as the children of the covenant promise. Of many children that Avraham fathered, including Ishmael, only through Isaac was the promise carried. And even thus, only one of Isaac’s fraternal-twin sons, Jacob who became Israel, was granted to be the carrier of the heritage promise. Even the metaphorical sons of Avraham cited by Rav Shaul in Gal.3 are not deemed sons of Isaac or of Jacob/Israel. The uncircumcised sons of Avraham are not of Israel, and there are even, as I just noted above, a number of circumcised ones who, like Ishmael, are not children of the promises nor of the covenant(s) that were made only with Israel. There are some aspects of Torah that apply to the sojourner, and even to other foreigners farther off, as well as to the native born of Israel; and there are other aspects that apply only to Israel — and this distinction that is defined in Torah remains valid as long as the present heavens and earth continue to endure, per Mt.5:18. The amazingly good news, however, is that those who are excluded from the covenants of promise have been brought near to the focus of those promises by means of faithful trusting in the symbols of sacrifice and restoration represented in the martyrdom of Rav Yeshua as messiah ben-Yosef. Hence their faith grants them equal-access to HaShem and to a host of blessings that otherwise would be available only to Jews under the covenant. Likewise the symbolic fatherhood of Avraham extends over those who emulate the quality of his faith, alongside those who are sons by covenant. Such a shared faith does not erase the distinctions between faithful Avraham before he was circumcised and faithful Avraham after he was circumcised, between Ishmael and Isaac, between Esav and Jacob/Israel, or between the Jewish nation and all the other nations of the earth. As Rav Yeshua observed (viz:Jn.3:6): “That which is flesh is flesh (i.e., physical); that which is spirit is spirit (i.e., symbolic or metaphorical)”. Any failure to recognize the indicated distinctions is a guarantee of confusion and misunderstanding; and throughout history it has brought death to millions of Jews.
     Now, having clarified all that, if non-Jews who are not responsible to maintain the ritual purity required for Jews to participate in Temple rituals, wish nonetheless to pursue purity and cleanliness with respect to skin diseases or mold on building materials, they may benefit from better health — especially by avoiding the deleterious effects noted in modern times that result from breathing mold spores carried in the air of contaminated buildings and ventilation systems. They will also offer benefit to Jews who might enter such buildings, or might purchase them and become liable to purify them in accordance with their Torah responsibilities. If so, everyone could benefit.
Peter to Proclaim Liberty:
     Because Gentile Believers are under the same law, they must recognize that the Torah specifies the Land is inherited according to tribal allotment and the tribal identification of one’s immediate father. This is not evidence of being excluded from the covenant. This is merely evidence that there exists in Israel both tribally-affiliated, landed-natives and non-tribally-affiliated, land-less gerim. Both are Israelites; Both belong to the covenant.
     Your mistake is to claim that because one is excluded from tribal land that it must follow that one is also excluded from covenant. The reality: one may be a covenanted member of Israel despite having no claim to the Land.

26 comments:

  1. Finally something I enjoyed reading. They have no argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Honestly, Peter, the convoluted thought process over there just boggles my mind. I love them, but they sure are frustrating. Reading some of those threads makes my head hurt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it's astounding to me that David Rudolph is trying so desperately, with websites like Messianicgentiles, to drive gentiles to Mymorningmeditations and Sojourning With Jews. Does he expect clear-minded Gentiles to visit those awful sites and say to themselves, "Yes, it all makes sense now. This is what I've been searching for!"

      Delete
  3. I have yet to see a clear minded Gentile.....LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  4. My "awful website" where no "clear thinking" gentile would go, is not about One Law theology Peter, as I've never spent a moment with that (to me) fantastical idea. You see, I am a lifelong gentile Christian and married to a Jewish man for almost 30 years. My "issues" have not been about how to apprehend his Jewish identity and try to make it my own, rather, it's been about more practical matters.

    (Now, just to be clear, when I say "Jewish" I mean someone who has known he is Jewish since birth and only has Jewish family members, and not any of the other variety of ways I've seen people attempt to claim Jewish identity).

    Over the years I've had many questions and concerns (and not a few frustrations) both spiritual and physical, i.e., how do Jews factor into the "plan of God", now? What if there's another holocaust? What to do when my daughter is called a "Christ Killer" and subjected to anti-semitism in school/society? How to raise her with a positive attitude, despite the tension on both sides, and help her understand who she is? How to react to people's less-than-kind remarks and attitudes toward my husbands Jewish identity, and the rejection I've experienced from his family, etc.

    I never spent a moment thinking I was Jewish, or worried that I must find a way to be Jewish, because my life experiences were far different from theirs. They are Jews, I am not. And, of all the things I am insecure about, happily this is not on the list!

    My real life experiences of trying to come to terms with the inevitable family issues--as well as the overwhelming upheaval and sorrow upon discovering historic Christian anti-Semitism--is what led to the creation of my "awful" blog. I want to understand the issues better and be a part of healing the rift, not retro-fitting the scriptures to make myself something I am not. But, for the past almost 30 years I couldn't find anyone to work the issues out with. Not my pastor, not my Christian bookstore, none of my apologetic materials, and no Christian or Jew who had either the knowledge or desire to deal with my questions, concerns, and fear.

    Regarding your comment to me on James' blog: if you had read it clearly you would have noticed that I was referencing and quoting a scholar (who is neither Messianic or "One Law") that I'd been reading that same morning-- about the same passage of scripture--and how ancient, and, later rabbinic, Judaism understands the issue of moral vs ritual impurities. Apparently, you missed that.

    Unlike you, I don't fancy my blog an "expert's" blog. No one is paying me for my opinion and people can either read it or not. It's definitely not "orthodox", but then, let's be honest, neither is yours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Ruth",

      RE: "...I want to understand the issues better..."

      No, you want to paint as anti-Semitic anyone who disagrees with your ideology.

      You want to paint yourself as a bridge-builder and a "Ruth." Let me tell you something: the real Ruth took on the Way of Life of her people. She identified with the People of her husband.

      You, madam, are no Ruth.

      Delete
    2. "RE: "...I want to understand the issues better..."

      No, you want to paint as anti-Semitic anyone who disagrees with your ideology."


      Huh? Unlike you, I don't have a polemical blog, I relate my journey.

      " You want to paint yourself as a bridge-builder and a "Ruth." Let me tell you something: the real Ruth took on the Way of Life of her people. She identified with the People of her husband."

      And, again I say: Huh?

      What a bizarre statement. Since you don't know anything about me, I assume you mean that since I don't engage in the fantasy of calling myself Jewish, you assume I haven't thrown in my lot with my husband and his family? Ha, if you only knew a quarter of what you think you do. Let's not forget, Ruth was never called Jewish, she remained "Ruth the Moabitess". Just like I didn't become a man when I married my husband, I also did not "become" Jewish.

      I figured an attempt to provide some perspective wouldn't make much difference since your blog reveals your unabashed arrogance and immaturity and I've seen your emotional outbursts in the past.

      We do have quite different perspectives though, don't we?

      You portray yourself an expert, I ask questions and relate my personal journey – with real Jewish people.

      You throw fits at being called a gentile and insist on taking things that don't belong to you, including the land of Israel (!), I am comfortable with who God made me.

      You claim to love the Jewish people, I relate the harm people with perspectives like yours cause Jews who are trying to pick up broken pieces.

      You barge in with an overblown entitlement mentality borne from a) insecurities, b) errant theology, and c) massive ego, insisting that God couldn't possibly differentiate between you and a Jew, no matter how many times He does just that in His Word. I challenge people to trust God, and point out that He created distinction for a reason. The believing gentile has a beautiful calling and purpose, but it isn't to take on Jewish identity. You have a hissy fit and try to stir up strife amongst believers.

      " You, madam, are no Ruth."

      I don't claim to be "a" Ruth, for I am Ruth, I was given that name at birth, after both of my grandmothers.

      Delete
    3. "Ruth",

      Abraham was also called an Amorite (Eze. 16:3) but did he continue to act like an Amorite? No! Ruth was called a Moabite. Did she act like a Moabite? No!

      As members of the covenant People, they both kept Torah as their Way of Life. Christianity rejects Torah by promoting it's own holy days, it's own "kashrut" (which accepts anything), it's own shabbat (which profanes the real Shabbat).

      YOU identified as a Christian. I assumed nothing. Either you are a Christian and you reject Torah as Christians do or you are trying to be Torah observant and are, consequently, NOT a Christian.

      So which are you? Are you like the real Ruth who tried to follow the Way of Torah? Or are you something else entirely?

      Delete
    4. Aha, I forgot that Church/Christian bashing is generally a "One Law" platform.

      I identify as a Christian because I have been one my entire life since I entered into relationship with Him when I was a mere toddler. The particulars aren't important for this discussion, but the point is that over my lifetime I've learned about Him and began to hear His voice (not audibly) and seen His mighty hand in my life, as well as that of other Christians. I've become forever grateful and committed to Him as I understood Him from the Bible and my Baptist denomination. Although I am technically a “Messianic Gentile” I have no problem in using “Christian” to describe myself either. Do I erect a tree on Christmas? No, but many Jews do. :-)

      Delete
    5. "Ruth",

      Stop waffling and answer the question:

      "Are you like the real Ruth who tried to follow the Way of Torah? Or are you something else entirely?"




      Delete
    6. Either you walk according to the Way of Life as defined by Torah or you follow the way of life as defined by Christianity. This is a simple question and you can't even give me a straight answer.

      Delete
  5. Given your rather harsh comments to "Ruth" Peter, I felt the following quote from Rabbi Zelig Pliskin is appropriate:

    Anger frequently comes from feeling that someone did not treat you with the proper respect. People tend to feel angry with someone who fails to show them the honor they think they deserve.

    The solution is to contemplate how valueless honor really is.

    When you react to slights to your honor with a sense of personal dignity, you gain much more than when you lose your temper. The greater your own realization that you have intrinsic worth since you are created in the image of the Almighty, the less the slights of mortals will affect you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James,

      It's funny that you're totally fine when she's accusing everyone who disagrees with her of being anti-Semitic. But the moment someone calls her out on her anti-Biblical ideology, you jump in and call that person "harsh."

      There's a time for coddling and there's a time for standing up for the truth.

      You're upset because I asked her a simple question:

      Do you follow the Way of Life as defined by the Torah or do you follow the way of life as defined by Christianity?

      Two completely different paths. And she can't give a straight answer. "I'm a Christian...well, I'm technically a Messianic Gentile...Jews plant Christmas trees!"

      What nonsense!



      Delete
    2. From James:

      I seem to be encountering the same Blogger glitch as PL, so I'm forced to comment as "Anonymous" as well.

      It would seem that Rabbi Pliskin's words which I quoted above are lost on you, Peter. More's the pity.

      Delete
    3. James,

      It would seem that Halberstam's words are lost on you:

      ""Imagine a world where your behavior is never evaluated: no one ever praises you, no one ever criticizes you. Whenever you do something wrong, people say, 'Ah, you know how she is, you can't really blame her. If you knew about her upbringing, you'd understand.' Most people hate to be excused in that dismissive manner. We want people to hold us responsible for what we do, even if that means ticking them off. We would much prefer to have people angry with us than have them pity us.
      Strangely, when it comes to criticizing others, we suddenly become very 'understanding' and refuse to pronounce judgment. We can be amazingly inventive in thinking up excuses to exonerate others' trespasses. Sometimes we turn sociologist and blame the system, the economy, or the culture. Sometimes we become psychologists and point to mitigating factors like stress and insecurities. Excusing others makes us feel magnanimous and compassionate. These are undeserved emotions, however, for what we're really doing is condescending to people and showing them lack of respect," pg. 126 of Everyday Ethics by Joshua Halberstam.

      Delete
  6. *Grabbing the popcorn as we speak...* :P

    I wanted to point out something that I think sits at the heart of this argument, Proclaim Liberty said:

    Even the metaphorical sons of Avraham cited by Rav Shaul in Gal.3 are not deemed sons of Isaac or of Jacob/Israel.

    If gentiles(followers) relationship to Abraham, Israel, Messiah, the covenants is purely metaphorical, then there are no literal implications, there is no relationship, making Paul's words pointless, its left only to the imagination. It would be like walking into an orphanage, stating all of the children are your metaphorical sons, and never adopting or taking care of any of them, sounds nice, means nothing.

    If we make Paul's words metaphorical in relationship to Abraham, the covenants, Israel, then we have no purpose in any of those, its a point that doesn't even need to be stated.

    This to me is the problem, its like replacement theology, but all you do is flip the players. Jews were at one point being replaced by Gentiles who were the "New Israel" and Israel simply became a metaphor for "the Gentile Church", now gentiles are simply the metaphors. So being "a son of Abraham by faith", is less than being "a son of Abraham through proselytism", through proselytism you actually become part of the community and family in a literal way, instead of the metaphorical community and family through faith... lol :P It makes me laugh writing this, because the idea behind this is so absurd. Yet it is continuously purported by many who share this perspective. The very same thing happens with Ephesians 2:

    Why would Paul go out of his way to say that at one point, prior to Messiah you were excluded from many things, such as the covenants, Israel, Messiah, etc, only to say that now that you trust in the Messiah, you are still not included, because its only a metaphor. Just imagine if you were. :P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why would Paul go out of his way to say that at one point, prior to Messiah you were excluded from many things, such as the covenants, Israel, Messiah, etc, only to say that now that you trust in the Messiah, you are still not included, because its only a metaphor. Just imagine if you were."

      Here’s the questions I ask:

      1. Why didn't Paul-- and James and Peter via the Jerusalem Council, or anywhere else-- simply say: As God demands of the Jew, He now demands likewise from you. You're exactly the same, and are no longer a Gentile. Go, therefore, and become circumcised, since the Torah is fully incumbent upon you.

      NOWHERE have I found this. Why in the world does Paul say to REMAIN in your identity when your were called, if there is no diff?

      2. Since God made a legally binding covenant upon Himself and Israel, that will hold up in a heavenly court at the appropriate time, and augmented it with amazing signs and wonders and elicited from them an acceptance to take on the Covenant and Torah, which He reiterated and re confirmed multiple times, when and where did this ever happen to believing gentiles?

      Again, the word *nowhere* comes to mind.

      What you don't seem to consider is that the expansion of His grace to believing gentiles is, as Paul says, to show that He is not *only* the God of Israel, but the God of gentiles too. And, perhaps, to call out a people to stand between the Jews and the rest of the gentile world, thus allowing us to participate in the redemption and great consummation, and become blessed by the promises He has made to Israel?

      Just imagine, with the hindsight we are afforded, If Christianity had thus understood itself, how different history would be. Holocaust? What’s a Holocaust? Jews defined by not believing in Jesus? Hardly, they would have come to know and love him via his faithful believing gentile servants.

      God places boundaries upon all of His creation. To claim to be outside of His boundaries is to equate oneself with God.

      Delete
    2. Hey Ruth,

      I wasn't asking you any questions, I was making some rhetorical statements. With that said, are you actually asking me a question, and if you were interested in what I said, do you have an answer?

      Assuming you are actually asking me, I am more than willing to help out.

      1. Why didn't Paul-- and James and Peter via the Jerusalem Council, or anywhere else-- simply say: As God demands of the Jew, He now demands likewise from you. You're exactly the same, and are no longer a Gentile. Go, therefore, and become circumcised, since the Torah is fully incumbent upon you.

      The problem is, this is an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy. The bible doesn't tell us many things, such as solving world hunger, this does not mean, we shouldn't strive for such a goal, simply because we are not directly commanded, however, we could argue we are indirectly commanded, in loving our neighbor, but that requires reading between the lines. The reality is also the opposite of what you say, why didn't Paul, Peter, and James, spell out that gentiles do not need to keep the Torah, it would have been so simple to just say that, we read of neither, instead we conclude based on what little we are given, you assume they did, probably based on your understanding of Acts 15, which is funny, because I see the exact opposite. But lets take Matthew 28 for example, we have Yeshua telling his disciples to go and make disciples of the nations, teaching them all of what I taught you, not a gentile version or only some of what I taught, nope all. We have Paul relating gentiles to Abraham, to the covenants, to Israel, and for what purpose if nothing changes? Clearly Paul was not just being deceitful or playful, he intended for these words to mean something. In fact, if they didn't mean anything, there would have never been an Acts 15:1 or the conflicts we see in Galatians. The whole argument in Galatians and in Acts 15:1, revolves around gentiles not being son's of Abraham "unless they go through the proselyte ritual" and Paul's words being in contrast to that of the circumcision party. There was never a conflict until the idea of gentiles being incorporated into the fold came to be.

      In the Torah, we read of gentiles coming to serve the God of Abraham, joining him and his people, this is not at all a new concept, but an old concept. In fact, for Abraham to literally be the father of a multitude of nations, he must have some adoptees to fill those numbers. This does not mean a gentile becomes a Jew, the gerim never became Jews, no need to start now. :P

      NOWHERE have I found this. Why in the world does Paul say to REMAIN in your identity when your were called, if there is no diff?

      As I wrote earlier, an argument from silence, is no argument at all. You are also presuming to say, that keeping the commandments of God, is the identity of a Jew, did you know gerim also kept the commandments?
      Concerning 1 Cor 7, Paul is not saying you should remain a woman, as if you could even change that or that you should remain a slave(in fact he says later, if you are slave see if you can be free), instead he is referring to salvation, the "circumcision party" taught that one could not be saved unless they added a human element to the mix, as if God can't save you as a slave or as a gentile or as a... etc. This is not saying what you are wanting it to say.

      I will answer your next questions below.

      Delete
    3. Ruth, part 2

      2. Since God made a legally binding covenant upon Himself and Israel, that will hold up in a heavenly court at the appropriate time, and augmented it with amazing signs and wonders and elicited from them an acceptance to take on the Covenant and Torah, which He reiterated and re confirmed multiple times, when and where did this ever happen to believing gentiles?

      God never made a covenant with a group of gentiles or any gentile nation for that matter, but does that seal the deal? not at all. Instead He opened the doors. We see the promises to Abraham and to his seed, we see that he will become the father of many nations, which would obviously include gentiles. We later see a multitude of gentiles standing at Mount Sinai receiving the covenant and the Torah with Israel. We see gentiles joining Israel and keeping the Torah all through the Tanach. We see in Solomon's day over 150,000 gentiles joining Israel. We see the Torah going forth to the nations, as a Messianic prophecy, we see in Isaiah 56 gentiles being blessed to keeping the covenant and keeping the Torah. We see Yeshua instructing His disciples to teach the gentiles what he taught them. We see Paul tell gentiles to be imitators of him. We see Paul tell gentiles to stop living like gentiles. We see gentiles being related to Abraham, Israel, the covenants, the promises, who are now in the Messiah. I can go on, but that gets the point across.

      Again, the word *nowhere* comes to mind.

      Time to dust off that bible of yours.

      What you don't seem to consider is that the expansion of His grace to believing gentiles is, as Paul says, to show that He is not *only* the God of Israel, but the God of gentiles too. And, perhaps, to call out a people to stand between the Jews and the rest of the gentile world, thus allowing us to participate in the redemption and great consummation, and become blessed by the promises He has made to Israel?

      I completely agree, so I am not sure how this conflicts with my views.

      Just imagine, with the hindsight we are afforded, If Christianity had thus understood itself, how different history would be. Holocaust? What’s a Holocaust? Jews defined by not believing in Jesus? Hardly, they would have come to know and love him via his faithful believing gentile servants.

      I agree, I wish this had not happened, but sadly it did. However, God has a purpose in all this as well, an ultimate plan.

      God places boundaries upon all of His creation. To claim to be outside of His boundaries is to equate oneself with God.

      Agreed. This is why I look to the Torah as a standard and boundary in following God, what better place to start, than God's word?

      Delete
  7. Zion,

    I agree and add to your thoughts. I was pondering 1 Peter 2 the other day:

    9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

    11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. 12 Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation.

    Who is Peter speaking to? He is citing Exodus 19:5-6

    5 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”

    So, is Peter only talking to Jews? Or, if he is addressing everyone who believes in Messiah, why is he referring to all as A holy nation, A royal priesthood, A people for God's own possession? All are singular. Bilateral ecclesiology has to begin assigning this passage to Jews and that passage to Gentiles and then the bird's nest begins....

    You are correct, we are grafted in, it is not metaphorical. Being grafted includes 'house rules.'

    I'm looking forward to the Messiah sorting this out...

    ReplyDelete
  8. UPDATE from ProclaimLiberty:

    [Note that some glitch in identifying myself to your blog-response posting mechanism required my selection of the "Anonymous" option.]

    As you concluded your essay above, Peter, you did not also include my subsequent response to your reference to " "hukah a'hat" in Num.15:15, nor to your reference to tribal land allotments. For the benefit of those who do not read the entirety of the discussion on James' blog, let me post that response here also:
    --------------------------
    @Peter — Your reference to tribal land allotments or tribal affiliation is entirely irrelevant and anachronistic. We Jews have maintained HaShem’s Torah covenant for about three-and-a-half millennia, now, and we know very well how it is to be applied in the varying circumstances that have affected it and us throughout that entire period, and to whom it does and does not apply (despite any of its claims about our own flaws and shortcomings). Clearly, you do not understand the nature and application of this covenant, nor even that of its renewal and internalization as described by Jeremiah. And, after all, why should you? It doesn’t apply to you. [You are, apparently, neither Israel nor Judah.] I already described above what does apply to you, so I won’t restate it again. The Jerusalem Council of Emissaries clarified absolutely and unambiguously in Acts 15 that gentile believers are *not* under obligation to the whole Torah, so you err to say that they are “under the same law” if you think that law is the whole of Torah. This Jewish Council was not neglecting nor denying any of the passages of Torah that you reference regarding gerim — they simply understood them better than you seem to do. Among the finer details of ” ‘hukah a’hat” in Num.15:15 that they undoubtedly understood is its context and connection with the fire-offerings mentioned in the preceding verse 14. It is not a generalization regarding all the ‘hukim in Torah, nor to the mishpatim that interpret them, nor to the entirety of Torah nor of the mitzvot within it, nor to the “brit” (covenant) that it defines. You are not entitled to consider yourself a participant in the covenant of Israel nor the peoplehood of Israel, any more than I would be entitled to serve as the Cohen haGadol (since I am neither a Cohen nor even a Levi). Only faith entitles you to the blessings allotted to those of faith, including participation in the kingdom of heaven.
    --------------------------

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Proclaim LIberty,

      Sorry about the web-site glitch. Thanks for posting your comment.

      Delete
    2. "Clearly, you do not understand the nature and application of this covenant, "

      What a condescending remark PL...Only you understand, right? You should change your moniker to Proclaiming ignorance....

      Delete