IsraelChurch1

"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth"?

Following is dialogue with a brother some time back who appears to be genuinely seeking the truth but at the same time appeasing his Jewish wife who was not exactly in full agreement with the Christian track our friend had taken. This following series of correspondence is a fine (and alarming) example of the track a person can take when they, in the end, set out to please both God and the opposing person they happen to be aligned with due to a church, family, friendship, or marriage relationship. The bottom line is ... are we prepared to follow the Jesus of the New Testament who claimed to be God in the flesh and God eternal, without unnecessary add-ons and place Him first before anything or anyone? These unnecessary add-ons could be, wait for it ... Jesus PLUS "our" tradition ... Jesus PLUS "a" church creed ... Jesus PLUS "my" denomination ... Jesus PLUS "an" endtime prophet ... Jesus PLUS "the Trinity" ... Jesus PLUS "my" Patriotic stance ... Jesus PLUS the law ... Jesus PLUS the Old Covenant ... Jesus PLUS good works ... Jesus PLUS Moses ... or Jesus PLUS the Torah, and so on, and so on. At the end of the day there is no neutral ground with our Saviour ... the Jesus of scripture is a stand-alone God who never accommodates our rational thinking, human sentiment or religious concepts.

By the way ... less than three years later this brother now appears to be almost a full blown Kabbalist completely divorced from the simplicity which is in Christ and given over to mysticism. This treatise is both a tragic and rather accurate example of how a seeker and wouldbe Bible believer can veer, over a period of time, from the straight and narrow path, in order to find the religion of convenience and happy medium between those in close and personal contact, who oppose his endeavour to walk fully in the truth and only know the cross.

Following is my correspondence (in white) with Jacko's (not his real name) queries and justifications (in red) with scripture (the Authorized Bible) used as the only source of back-up and reference. Changes and corrections have been made to allow for clarification and to make it more 'reader friendly':

From: Tom Lamb
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006
To: Jacko
Subject: Re: Trying to make sense of it all

Hi Tom,

Hi Jacko,

Nice to hear from you Brother.

I have read through a bit of your site (it's quite a lot to read and takes time so I haven't finished it!). I was just curious to get your understanding on something. I am a ‘lone believer’ right now basically following the Lord and studying on my own. Yet I do feel a strong conviction that I ought to be assembling with fellow believers in someone's home. I believe this is the NT model for how we are to fellowship and not in these monster churches. This aside though, there are Biblical practices that were ordained by God as well and I wanted to get your take on them if you wouldn't mind?

God gave us Holy Days (Passover, Yom Kippur, etc.) in the OT. Do you believe the observance of these days is still commanded by God? Why or why not?

Absolutely not Bro! Paul makes this very clear when he tackled those who were Judaizing the new Gentile converts in Gal. 4: 9-10:

"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years."

God gave us baptism and the ‘Lord’s supper’ in the NT. Do you believe the observance of these two ordinances are still valid? Why or why not?

Baptism in the name of Jesus is recorded right through the Book of Acts whereas the Lord's Supper is not mentioned once. Breaking Bread (as a meal) is mentioned three times however. Twice with the brethren and once with non believers. Please read "The Fallacy".

When I read the Bible, I still see the Torah/'Law' as relevant for believers. Not that we are ‘under the Law’ for salvation, but rather when we come to salvation, that the Lord expects us to learn His ways through His Law and to observe His Law from our hearts. What are your thoughts on this?

This is what I call "Jesus PLUS"! Or, putting a religious spin on the gospel!

The Torah was the law of Moses. The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The New plainly reveals from Hebrews 7:12 that "when the priesthood is changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Jesus is now our high priest and not a man, and the New Covenant goes beyond the Old where the law is no longer contained in ordinances which were nailed to the cross (Eph. 2:15) but written on our heart. Murder, idolatry and adultery, and so on, are now judged on what is in our heart (Pr. 23:7 ... "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he") not just what we do outwardly. Our Sabbath rest is now in Christ not in days. Because in reality "Today", which is "this day", is now "the day of salvation". Circumcision is now discerned on what has happened in our heart (the new birth) not what has been done to our flesh outwardly. There has been a big change since the cross Brother. It is no longer an eye for an eye but we are to love our enemies. A new commandment has been given ("the royal loyal", "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus", "the law of liberty" that is) that "we love one another" (mentioned 12 times in the NT) "as Christ also hath loved us" (Jn 13:34; 1 Jn 2:8). Etc.! Etc.! This is radical stuff! However, this is what true circumcision of the heart is all about, where every root that does not bring forth fruit for the kingdom must be severely and completely dealt with. This is so immensely simple that it can be a stumbling block for our minds. Like ... "this is too good to be true!!" Or, "How can it be sooo simple!!" Or, "This is an over simplification of religion (or God's requirements)!!" And so on!

Thank you for your time, Tom!

You are most welcome Brother! Please take this before the Lord and ask Him to show you the way. I would hate to be responsible for anything from me which would deceive others. God bless!

Hi Tom,

No problem! My apologies for misunderstanding you! Email is not the best forum for communication and like you said, we don't know each other at all and so we proceed with caution.

I have to say, no one is more thorough in their answers than you, Tom. I have asked a lot of questions through emails over the months/years and I usually get a paragraph in return or a book recommendation. Never has anyone taken the time you have to really ‘get into it’ and I wanted you to know how appreciative I am of that.

You gave me SO much to think about, pray about, and of course STUDY. I will be printing out your email to take home and work through. When I do, I am sure I will be able to write back with some thoughts on what you've said. But in the meantime, there is one issue that still lingers that I mentioned in my previous email that was not yet addressed.

If Christ ‘nailed the law to the cross’, why did His disciples and Paul continue living by the Law afterwards? We read in Acts how they went to the Temple to pray, and that Paul was hastening to return to Jerusalem for certain Holy Days, etc. Why would Paul be rushing back to Jerusalem for certain Holy Days if they were ‘done away with’? Why did Peter tell the Lord, “never has an unclean thing touched my lips” if he was allowed to eat unclean animals after the resurrection of Jesus? Did the disciples remove their tzitzit upon the resurrection or did they continue to wear them? These are the issues I still struggle with. It seems at first glance that the Scriptures point to the law being ‘done away with’, yet as we read how the disciples and Paul conducted their lives AFTER Jesus’ resurrection, that they still observed the Law (Temple prayers, Holy Day observances, Sabbath observances, dietary observance, etc.). What are your thoughts on these issues, Tom?

Please know that I am not like the ones you pointed out above who extend an olive branch and then show their true colors soon after. I am genuinely seeking answers, not confrontation.

Thanks again, Tom!

Jacko.

Okay Brother ... I can fully understand where you are coming from. The early disciples (the Jewish believers before they were called Christians) were commanded to stay in Jerusalem to wait for the Promise of the Father (to be filled with the Holy Ghost and be empowered to be followers and witnesses to the new - the gospel - moving out from Jerusalem then Judea etc.) Please read the beginning of Acts? Once they had received the Promise they were to go into all the world, which meant bringing this new good news to everyone including the Gentiles. What did they do? The majority stayed put, attached to the Temple and Jerusalem and not reaching the Gentiles. So the Lord had to bring persecution to scatter them abroad. Also, remember, while all this was happening revival broke out at Antioch (completely "without the camp", unrehearsed and without anticipation or intention). God had done this independently of the apostles and the concision stronghold in Jerusalem and this is where the disciples were first labelled (branded, named, nicknamed) Christians.

Then God did something very totally different again, outside of convention, which would've also appeared totally out of character to the Jews as well as the new Jewish believers ... He raised up Paul out of the life of a former Jewish religious zealot and terrorist called Saul of Tarsus, being called direct from heaven, who received the revelation of the mystery of the Lord Jesus Christ where baptism no longer saved (let alone the law - John's baptism was the biggie) but through full belief in who Jesus was and calling out in His name. This is how Paul put it in 1 Cor. 15:8:

"And last of all he (Jesus) was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."

The reason (next verse):

"For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God (justified at the time by his Jewish counterparts because this new "movement" would apparently no longer conform to Jewish protocol - compare Acts 13:39 with Acts 15:5 and Php 3: 2-3)."

Furthermore, Paul never got in with the apostles until 17 years latter. When he finally did (by 'revelation only' - Gal. 2:2) he did not see them as anything special above any other believer (he had received revelation, direct, about the priesthood of ALL believers). This was Paul's estimation and opinion of the apostleship in Jerusalem (those who had been with and called by Jesus, and were now calling the shots or allowing themselves to be manipulated by the concision party):

"But of these (the "great" apostles - those who apparently had the authority to crack the whip) who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me".

In other words ... these ordained blokes who were supposed to have it all together could not bring anything further to the table to what had already been revealed to Paul direct, or to Paul's simple gospel ... the cross! "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." As a result of Paul going and challenging the apostles face to face here's one of the greatest settlements made of all time:

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

You see, these blokes were not real apostates but just blokes (and genuine blokes may I add) who had been saved and were starting to veer through the weakness of the flesh and desperately needed correcting. Who was qualified to do this? Paul was ... "as of one born out of due time" and as the last apostle to have seen the Lord (1 Cor. 15:8) and receive the mystery of God (the full counsel of God) direct from Him, and had not shunned to declare it ALL (Acts 20:27).

Therefore, the reason why Paul went to Jerusalem and visit the apostles was because they had not moved on in their new pilgrimage but where still tied to the Jewish law thing (along with Peter) saying salvation was not enough but that you had to continue in the Old also, being circumcised etc., to be saved. Paul went and withstood them face to face (including Peter) telling them to move on and put no restraints on believers and stop trying to make Gentile believers into Jews. They had started off well in the Spirit but were now trying to live The Way in the flesh (a religious trap continuing to this day in many forms and varieties) and even making this doctrine. God raised Paul up for a reason. He was the only one who had not compromised in marrying the two covenants together because he knew the latter cancelled out the former and did not want to make the cross to no effect. Read all of Galatians again please! Here's just a wee taste:

Gal. 2:18. "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor."

The foundations of the apostles (and prophets) were being laid and Paul was the completion of this foundation where Jesus was building His Church on (the Body of Christ). Paul was simply another stone, like Peter and everyone else called, to lay this foundation on the bedrock of Jesus Christ. This foundation can not be added to or parts removed. Every living stone called was important to be part of this organic spiritual building. Paul capped it off with what God had shown him ... revelation direct from Him without a human proxy or religious hierarchy, let alone religious trappings getting in the way between him and God, or God and man in general. Praise the Lord Peter repented and an agreement was made that Paul would go to the Gentiles with this good news and Peter would now go to the Jews with this good news. This is where a letter was agreed by all and sent to the Gentiles that they should only abstain from the four things you mentioned with an added comment as Acts 15:28 ... "to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things".

20 "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
(reiterating to the fact how the Jews were always reminded about the OT requirement every week on the Sabbath - but now things had changed as we now had Jewish believers in their Messiah Jesus)
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (because they would not conform to the Judaizers or compromise the truth to keep those in religious bondage happy in their blind state).
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

We read nothing here about the Gentile believers having to tithe, keep the feasts, Sabbaths and holy days, circumcise, look to high priests or rabbis for revelation or to confess their sins, or follow the Torah; do we? If this was so, would this have not been the most ideal time and the great opportunity necessary to give the law thing "the great needed" plug? However, because Hebrews is clear about the necessity of a change in law and a change also in priesthood, and the Old being imperfect and obsolete, we read no such things, apart from reading ... "we gave no such commandment"!

Scriptural references to back what I pointed out above:

Acts 1: 4 - 5. "And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

Verse 8. "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth (that's where I live - praise the Lord!!)".

Acts 11:19. "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only (still not full obedience at this stage but things were happening)."

Gal. 6:12. "As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ (Peter and the apostles got comfortable and settled down to pleasing the converted as well as the unconverted religionists - thus eliminating persecution and the dealings of the fire of the word)."

Gal. 5:11. "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased (a great way to get comfortable with religion and avoid persecution, which will come at the expense of watering down the cross!)."

11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
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 (meaning - if the old is over and been destroyed as the temple was about to be, then it is over - Paul was not sent to build on the old but the new ... the revelation of Jesus Christ which no man can add to)".

1 "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh (the cross is our beginning point and continuance! One cannot be saved in the Spirit then try and remain in the Spirit - or salvation - by then proceeding on with keeping the old Levitical law)?"

Heb. 7:19. "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."

Heb. 10:1. "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

1 Cor. 3:10 - 11. "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I (Paul) have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ (there is no Jesus PLUS!)."

Eph. 2:20. "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (not tradition, Moses, or the Torah), Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone".

Many blessings Brother,

Tom.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lamb
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006
To: Jacko
Subject: Re: Trying to make sense of it all

Jacko wrote:

Hi Tom,

Thank you SO MUCH for your graciousness and thorough response. Its not easy ‘walking alone’ (earthly speaking of course) so when I can seek the counsel of more mature believers, it is a great benefit!

You are most welcome Jacko. We are told from Proverbs that we are to buy the truth but not sell it. In other words ... once you have possessed it, pass it on freely to those who will not trampled it under their feet. If they spit on God's pearls, then simply move on!

Regarding what you wrote with the law, etc. I think my confusion stems from Acts 15:19-21:

"Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

It appears here that Gentiles are being told to abstain from these 4 things, but that the rest of the Law will be taught to them and has been taught to them in the Synagogues every Sabbath. In other words, they are already hearing the Law of Moses every Sabbath but so they will learn the Law that way, but that they also need to abstain from these 4 specific things as their sort of ‘first steps’ into their new faith.

How do you view these verses?

The key to this Chapter and your inquiry is the very first verse Brother (and the very reason Paul wrote the epistle of Galatians):

"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."

In conjunction with verse 24:

"Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment"

There is teachings around (which happens in many forms all the time) that getting saved is easy. Then once salvation has been embraced it's then time to slog things out with church rules, or man made doctrines, or keeping the law again. However, the NT makes it plain the cross is not only our beginning point but our ongoing continuance. It cannot be added to or be complicated later. If it does, we only end in bondage again, trying to please God in the flesh. It is sooo simple! Praise the Lord!

That's why the letter was written to the Gentile believers giving only four things which would profit them to abstain by. They were no longer under the law but followers of Christ, their new High Priest according to the order of Melchisedec and not the old order of the Levitical priesthood (Hebrews 7).

The law of Moses could not save anyone and was annulled at the cross. As Galatians says its place before Jesus was as a tutor (an instructor). However, even though it was given as a tutor it was still good and approved as it proved man could not keep it and needed a Saviour. This was its reason! Moreover, because we couldn't meet God's requirements (His law) we were then condemned by the law as God is just and righteous. That's why Jesus came to remove this curse so that we could walk in newness of life, with the law written on our hearts and not follow a set of cold formal rules set on stone or left in a tent or building. With the cancellation of the inferior temporal covenant, God not only promises but provides a better one. We are no longer governed by rituals, ceremonies, and days. These were only shadows of what was to come according to Galatians Two. The fulfilment (the body) ... being Christ! God's ceremonial law is gone. Nailed to the dead tree forever! His moral law (which is of the heart) is eternal and impossible to adhere to without Christ being in us ... the hope of glory!

Take a good look at Hebrews 8:6 - 10:10 please!

It couldn't be any simpler really, could it!

But it seems as though they were saying you must be circumcised and keep the law to be saved. It seems like this is what Paul was coming against. I.e.. You don't need to be circumcised or keep the law to be saved, BUT, once you are saved go and learn the Law so you can follow it with your heart in obedience. See, my struggle is that if God ‘did away’ with the Law at the cross, which parts were done away with? We all agree that we still shouldn't murder, or shouldn't bear false witness, etc. Yet, God never says ‘only follow the Ten Commandments’ (in fact Jesus only mentions 6 I believe when talking to the rich young man). So if all of the Law was done away with at the cross, wouldn't it mean that that would include the 10 commandments as well? If not, on what basis do we have scripturally to warrant still being obedient to the 10 (actually 9 since Christians don't observe the Sabbath) but not being obedient to the rest of the Law? How can we in good conscience say, “Well, I won't observe one of the ten commandments, but Ill observe the other 9 but yet the law was nailed at the cross.” It doesn't ‘fit’ at all to me.

Then we have the issue of food, tzitzit (tassles), etc. (the outward ‘stuff’). There is no proof scripturally that says the moment Christ ascended that the believing Jews ‘ripped off’ their tzitzit, started eating pig, etc. Even Peter said, “never has any unclean food touched my lips.” This was AFTER Christ had already ascended into Heaven. Why didn't Peter just start eating pork right away, etc.? Do you follow my meaning? I think there is a much bigger picture taking place here than what we've been taught over the centuries.

Take the Holy Days for instance. If the Law was ‘nailed at the cross’, this means we don't have to observe ANY days of God at all. Our years come and go without any observance. Why would God be so ‘arbitrary’ as to give His laws and times and seasons for millennia and then suddenly ‘do away with it’ all? I've heard that the law ‘points to Christ’. Yes, the Law points to Christ, but from what I understand, it points to Him to show us our need of a Saviour. But once we accept Him, we are then free to be obedient to the Law with our hearts and not because we are trying to earn God's favor.

I don't know, it just isn't making sense for me at this time.

Tell me please Brother ... if I am adamant that I believe living under 'the New (better) Covenant' means serving days and and outward observances, and trying to keep the law of Moses (the Torah) is now outdated and obsolete and that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only name above every other name, and the only name whereby one can be saved, and that the unscriptural names of Yeshua and Yahweh were substitutes (replacement names) for the scriptural names, and that becoming a Christian means you don't become Jewish, and that true Christianity (new covenant living - the new and living way) is not a new or reformed mode of Judaism at all, but something new, beyond and better, and that The Way and the Levitical Priesthood were totally incompatible, and following the Lord God and politics could never mix, and that all religion in every shape and form was bunk, could you still break bread with me and wash my feet? Could you still give me the right hand of fellowship Jacko?

Your fellow servant in Christ Jesus the Lord,

Tom a lamb.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lamb
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006
To: Jacko
Subject: Re: Trying to make sense of it all

Jacko wrote:

Hi Tom,

Please forgive my bombardment of questions. I know you're probably thinking, “who is this guy?

Not at all Brother. Your letter is just a repeat of many letters I have received, and keep receiving from advocates of the Messianic, Sacred Name and Hebraic Roots Movement, which I have been both in dialogue with (the friendly ones) or many times at loggerheads with, since I came online back in 1998.

He comes out of nowhere and starts hitting me with dozens of questions!?!” But the reason is because I've read a lot of your site and agree with much but have questions on things. And because I am in agreement that the ‘traditional church’ is not the place for me/us, I felt you may be able to help some of these lingering questions.

Because I feel strongly I have answered your questions very humbly and clearly from scripture, yet you still appear to be unsatisfied with, it looks to me like you are quite set in your doctrine after all and are satisfied that you have made up your mind in many of the aspects in which you believe. Would I be correct in saying this Bro, and not out of line?

Hi Tom,

In the continuing spirit of our conversation :), I read in your Two Wines article that you don't eat Pork & Shellfish. If abstaining from those foods are Old Covenant laws, I am curious to know why you abstain from them (health reasons aside)? As you are well aware now, I am really struggling with understanding what in the OT we are still obligated to observe (dietary laws, festivals, etc.) and what was ‘done away’ at the cross. I still don't feel at this point that I have peace with this issue. Especially when I read that you abstain from these foods because you are trying to live a Biblically centered lifestyle. If abstaining from these foods is Biblical, why do you not observe the Sabbath, The Day of Atonement, and so on? I'm just really trying to get a grasp on this, Tom. I hope you understand.

Sincerely,

Jacko.

Jacko,

Hi Brother! Good points Bro!

Firstly, the shellfish part is easy as I don't like the stuff. I gave up pork as well as sausages and fat cover content after I had a triple bypass as I found it very hard getting my cholesterol down. Therefore, this has got absolutely nothing to do with either earning my salvation let alone maintaining it or trying hard not to get out of line with God. I hope I have made this very clear. Whether you eat pork or not, or are circumcised or not, means absolutely nothing in God's eyes. It's whether you have clean hands and a pure heart that does. Moreover, this has got nothing to do with maintaining tradition, rites or ceremony, or what passes through your physical belly, or any outward observance for that matter!

Gal. 3:19. "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made".

As I have pointed out that under the New Covenant the saints are under the order of Melchisedec not under the order of the Levitical priesthood. Aaron was a temporary high priest under Moses whereas Jesus is an eternal high priest under the eternal Melchisedec, the King of Salem (or Prince of peace if you like). You must remember that at the time of Abram, Jerusalem had nothing to do with Israel (nor was it Israel's capital at this stage) and its king had nothing to do with Israel either at this stage, who (like Jesus and as Jesus pre cross) had neither beginning or end. Under our King (who was also a priest unto God in the same sense - Heb. 7:1) we have passed beyond the veil into the eternal (into the true eternal sanctuary of God not made with hands). That's why it says, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Plus, by knowing this verse ... "By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament", the Old was nullified (annulled - reduced to nothing, made void, cancelled) in Jesus. The very reason Jesus uttered those three most wonderful words from the cross ... "it is finished", and the veil being rented in order for us to pass freely into the presence of God, boldly, anytime. Free without ritual or rites, or times and boundaries! He has simply fulfilled the old cancelling out the old ceremonies and taking the commandments of God further ... away from outwardly being written on stone to what are the very inward thoughts and intents of our heart:

"For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after (following, continuing on from) the order of Melchisedec. For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof."

Please read Hebrews seven along with Hebrews five and six? Basically, in a nutshell ... when one is born again he goes from one order (in trying to appease the conscious by doing what he perceives as right) to a new higher order in the heavenlies, of pleasing God by receiving and obeying His way which is higher than mans.

As far as the law goes ... yes, it was good and always based on God's morality and character. But it was an outward thing and was not dealing with the nitty gritty ... the heart! F'instance, God in His wisdom forbid the eating of pork and shell fish as well as carnivorous animals and scavengers for His people back then, as these animals are not good for you, and separate what was clean from unclean, as a type of His people being different and separated from the unclean heathen (the Gentiles). However, under the New, food of any type does not corrupt us spiritually and the reason Peter was given the vision in Acts. He was to go to the Gentiles (the unclean) and the believers under the New could eat anything placed before them if it was received with prayer and thanksgiving, not asking questions for conscious sake. This way one is not a stumbling block to others if he ate food sacrificed to idols and was not blocked out from interchanging and both showing hospitality and receiving hospitality from the Gentiles, in order to win them over to God's cause too. In other words ... people are much much more important than literal food! Food is only temporal, physical and outward, and peoples souls are eternal.

Jesus also said that it was not what we eat that contaminates our heart but by what we think and what we say (from the abundance of the heart as an internal thing). A huge difference! In NZ all lamb is now slaughtered facing Mecca because the government does not want to offend our Islamic trading partners. This is out of the control of the Bible believer and not his business anyway. However, this means nothing to us when we buy it as according to scripture it is sanctified by the word and prayer. Sometimes I eat bacon by mistake at BBQs. This does not worry me one iota as it has no effect on me spiritually. I do not have to go through a ceremonial cleansing process. I am free in Christ! Praise the Lord! If someone eats a chocolate cookie with Santa or an Easter Bunny on the wrapper, it will not corrupt them. Sometimes my sons eat bacon when out, and they enjoy shellfish. They are young adults, and it is their choice. They are not condemned. Same for circumcision, which is a good healthy thing me thinks, but nothing to do with salvation. Whether one is cut or not cut in the flesh, as far as circumcision goes, it does not (or should not) interfere one iota with their relationship with the Lord.

It made sense for Paul to have Timothy (a Gentile believer) circumcised while among the Jews, because this way the Concision Party could have no ammunition against them nor find a technical loophole to bring unfounded accusations. This was for practical reasons and nothing to do with pleasing or not pleasing God. Paul was all things to all men to win some (to the Jew he was still a Jew), but would not move an inch when law was laid on them as a necessity for salvation or pleasing God.

Also, it is more convenient for me to take Saturday off from my job, but this is still nothing to do with law. I do it because I need to (rest wise that is), and Saturday is the most practical day in my case. Sometimes if I am called out to a job, on the odd occasion I am not condemned and would never make it a restraint on others that they should do the same as me, nor make it into a doctrine. One may only eat certain foods or place importance on certain days if he is weak in the faith (as a young novice f'instance) according to Paul. However, later on as a matured and discerning believer, if he was still insistent to others on these things (like making his opinion into a doctrine) then he is propagating bondage by trying to place it on others. This would also be refereed to as the doctrine of devils, as he had gone way over the fine line of grace and truth and was using his stance as a stick to bring others into line with bondage again. The Lord takes real exception to this (Gal. 1:6 - 9)!

Jacko, I have left out many verse quotations here, to try and make what I wrote flow. Anything (and everything) I have stated I am prepared to back up with a verse or two on each point should you request.

Hoping this makes sense Brother and trusting the Lord for giving us continued light on these matters.

Jacko wrote:

Hi Tom,

It is not that I am unsatisfied with your answers. I have just been ‘hit’ with many different teachings from many different angles and I'm just trying to make sense of it all. I feel for many months now I've been ‘hovering’ in a parachute around the bullseye but not quite landing on it yet. I am not set in my doctrine. But many of the ‘Hebraic Roots’ teachings do seem to make sense to me. But because it is all fairly new (leaving the Church and starting over), I am filled with questions. While I always go to the Lord first, He has given many the gift of teaching. He has chosen in His providence to use men to teach and the Holy Spirit to lead into truth. So I seek out answers. I am not set in my doctrine. I am simply seeking.

I will say this though. To say that Christianity is ‘better’ than Judaism (Rabbinical Judaism, yes, but better than Israel?), I believe this is a dangerous position. God has not abandoned His people. Nor has ‘the church’ ‘replaced’ Israel. I pray that is not what you believe.

But at any rate, it appears that I've worn out my welcome. But to answer your question, yes of course I would break bread with you.

Jacko.

Dear Jacko,

You have certainly not worn out your welcome Brother, and I apologize if I have sounded a little bit reactionary. You are right, there is so much confusion out there and stuff gets thrown at us from all directions, all the time. The reason I handled you with caution is that first, I don't know you, and second, much of the bombardment I have received over the last few years has been from the Hebraic and Sacred Name Camp, who have got very hostile with me at times because I refuse to embrace this new trend or cave into (like many others have been inclined to do) what they have been trying to place on me. In many cases at first they came to me with enticing words and flattery, waving the olive branch, yet with an ulterior agenda, where they have not taken too long to show their true colours. Over all though, this has been very good for me in one sense as it has caused me to throw myself into the scriptures and call out to the Lord for furthering revelation, confirming His precious word. The very reason I am endeavouring to be word based in everything and cross centred all the time. This is what I will lay my life on. I may sound dogmatic at times, and must confess I am but dust and fall very short of knowing much, but the reason I depend on Him for light and truth.

In regards to the law stuff I will reiterate my views again breaking them down to fine points in order for you to consider in the light of scripture coupled with prayer:

To get a clearer picture one must realize that the law of Moses is also referred to as the Levitical Law, the Ceremonial Law, Outward Observance, the Torah, which incorporates the Ten Commandments and all the Old Covenant requirements from days to the feasts and tabernacle service. The New Testament is very clear that these were only a temporal shadow (picture, type) until the reality of these things appeared, that substance being Christ (translated as Messiah in Hebrew). When the fulfilment arrived the old inferior things were done away with. That's why new wine cannot be placed in old bottles nor can old garment be patched up with new cloth according to Jesus of Nazareth. The two are totally incompatible as the latter cancels out the former. Serving the letter of the law could never satisfy God our Maker and Redeemer. This was done away with and replaced with what the book of Hebrews calls The New and Living Way; where the new believers in the Messiah are no longer Jew or Greek spiritually, but One New Man in Christ. Please read Galatians, Romans, Colossians Two and Hebrews for a comprehensive study?

Throughout the New Testament scripture reveals the freedom and reality of what it means crossing over through the rent vial to the new. How the dividing wall (partition, veil) was taken down at the cross so we all have equal access to the holiest of holy as equal children of God, entering with boldness and confidence. This is because God is no longer left back on a mountain but is now our Father (Daddy) with whom we can embrace fully, be relaxed and seated on His knee, resting on His bosom. No doubt the most ultimate and intimate thing in the whole universe and all creation.

Heb. 10:19. "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus (by interpretation of the Hebrew transposed to English - Joshua not Yeshua)."

Simple enough for babes and the base to understand.

Eph. 2:15 - 17. "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man (both Jew and Greek/Gentile together), so making peace; And that he might reconcile both (Jew and Greek/Gentile) unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off (the Greek/Gentiles), and to them that were nigh (Jews). For through him we both (Jew and Greek/Gentile) have access by one Spirit unto the Father (our Dad)."

This verse says it all ... Gal. 5:18:

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

Because the Spirit of God is subservient to the word of God, and not the other way around, to obey the word takes one beyond obeying the Ten Commandments. Jesus did away with the Ceremonial Law but He did not do away with the moral law (His principles). However, trying to follow or living to it is no longer required. If one lives in the Spirit walking in the Lord daily, God's requirements are automatically meet anyway. This is because the New Covenant goes beyond just the act of murder, immorality, idolatry, covetous and so forth, and right to the nitty gritty of what is actually residing in the heart of the individual. By just thinking these wrong things in your heart under the New one has already committed these sins even if he has not been guilty in participating in them in the physical outward sense. That's why circumcision of the flesh no longer applies (for salvation that is ... which does not mean being circumcised is wrong by the way). Whereas circumcision of the heart now apples. This is of course having all the dross inside our thinking and desires cut off and replaced with His newness of life.

The question of Israel:

Remember a major principle in scripture reiterated by Paul is that the natural (physical) comes first and is followed by the spiritual. F'instance ... the physical temple in the Old was followed by the spiritual temple in the New. Or circumcision of the flesh was followed by circumcision of the heart, as just mentioned, and so on. Here it is, from the word itself (1 Cor. 15: 44 - 45):

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

First we had the Old Covenant (law written on physical stone) then second we have the New Covenant (the law written on our hearts).

The New Testament makes it clear there are two Israels just as there is two Babylons (the spiritual one now - second -and the past geographical one in the Old Testament - first). One is the geographic, physical Israel found in the Middle East, which the New (or Paul) calls 'Israel of the flesh' where the present Jerusalem resides. The other is the heavenly one where the New Jerusalem (or spiritual Jerusalem) resides. Please ponder this following passage Brother:

Gal. 4:21 -26. "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid (religion, by the flesh), the other by a freewoman (the promise, the Spirit). But he who was of the bondwoman (first) was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman (second) was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants (the Old inferior and the New better); the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all (both the redeemed Jew and Greek/Gentile together in Jesus Christ)."

Did you get that Brother? These "are the two covenants"! One from Mount Sinai (the physical geographical ) Jerusalem now, and the other from above (the spiritual new Jerusalem future)!

Again, the book of Revelation makes reference to the heavenly Jerusalem:

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar (the whosoever - not just one of the apostles backing up what I was getting at before) in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God (Jesus Christ), and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name (Jesus Christ)."

"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband (Jesus Christ)."

The new city is the one we are called to just as the old city is the one we have been called out of, and away from the physical camp (without the camp). The new city is the one we look to and are sojourning towards. Heaven is our new home and everything down here is temporal and reserved for the fire. When the new heaven and earth is made, the New Jerusalem will be brought down from heaven as the new capital on earth.

In regards to the present Jerusalem, John places everything in its proper perspective when seeing through the eyes of the Spirit:

Rev. 11:8. "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

This is "the Jerusalem which is now" according to Galatians ... the present geographical city.

You see Jerusalem is guilty of stoning the prophets of old and then after God sent His Son, they are guilty of murdering Him too (along with the rest of the world of course - they were aligned with Rome - the Gentile world - in doing this). What's more, like New York, Tel Aviv, Auckland, Rome, Cairo, London, Paris, Amsterdam, Mumbai, Sydney, Hong Kong, etc. etc., it is wicked and in rebellion against God. They are all tarred with the same brush being under the same "prince of this world" ("the prince of the devils")!

Here's God's city ... our new home:

Rev. 21:23. "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof."

Yes, this is God's holy city not the earthly one whom Jesus wept over as He knew it was going to be judged and destroyed 30 years later, with not one stone remaining on another at the temple complex. What was once relevant was no longer relevant as the Body of Christ (not made with mans hands) became the new temple and God's dwelling place. If one is born again by the Spirit of God he or she is now the temple of God, not bricks and mortar or an organization, or a geographical setting, or an old obsolete system.

Rev. 22:14. "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

That's the heavenly city we are called to! The true eternal one! Not the present Jerusalem in the Middle East nor the capital in Italy called Rome!

You mentioned something about querying me whether I was saying the church was better than Israel. Well, Brother I don't follow the church (even the Bride of Christ) nor do I follow Israel as we have just read from Gal. 4:25 that she is presently in bondage with her children and also according to 2 Cor. 3: 14-16 is presently veiled from the truth, blind, and having not received Christ nor abandoned the old obsolete Levitical system for Him, at this point in time. Yes, I do not follow either the Church or Israel for that matter, but hopefully the commandments of the Lord ... His word which is 100% reliable I believe. By following either one (the Church or Israel) you will be following man and going off key:

2 Chr. 17:4 ... "and walked in his commandments, and not after the doings of Israel."

You see, unlike many in Christendom, I do not place Israel on a pedestal nor do I go the other extreme of saying it has no place on earth. The chosen people today are His children that are in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. By receiving Christ is the only right you have to be called His chosen son according to scripture (John 1:12). Jesus is the issue not a nation. It is what we do with Him that counts for eternity. I am both religiously and politically neutral. I just saw the movie "Munich" by Stephen Spielberg last night. Even though Stephen is Jewish he has tried to portray the movie in an unbiased way I believe (which I would not recommend everyone to see because of its disturbing historical content). Even though this director is not a Christian he does show how an eye for an eye (which Israel still lives under today, being still under the Old Covenant and blinded to the New) no longer works as revenge only triggers off more revenge, as the violence tends to escalate. There is no end to this until both the Palestinian and the Jew turn to Jesus, the Prince of Peace. That is the only way there will be peace. The gospel was to the Jew first, then the Gentile as the righteous seed came through the nation of Israel due to the promise. However, scripture says in regards to His people of old ...

Hosea 4:6. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

Furthermore, because Israel rejected Christ's kingdom the Lord took it to the Gentiles ...

Acts 13:46. "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you (to the Jew first): but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

This verse fulfilling the very words of Jesus previously who prophesied the kingdom would be taken away from the Jews due to their rejection of Him:

Mt 21:43. "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

Many in Christendom teach falsely today that the vine is Israel (another way to get us unfocused). This is not true as Jesus is the vine and the Jews are the branches (read John 15 and Romans 11). Because of their disobedience and rejection of their Messiah, the book of Romans makes it plain they have been cut off from the vine and the Gentiles have been grafted in. However, does this mean the Lord has forgotten the Jews (who were once His people)? No way! That's why He still stands at the door and knocks as Jews are returning to God through Jesus and being grafted back into the vine also (hence, your dear wife). The very reason I reject what is called 'replacement theology' as Israel still exists as a nation on earth, and God will keep dealing with them in chastisement until one day they will turn to the one they have pierced. When Jesus comes back for His 1,000 year reign on earth, the present corrupt Jerusalem will be cleansed and be the reinstated capital of the earth and Israel will be the centre. However, in the meantime Israel will continue in its dilemma with great suffering because it is trying to live by a dead religion (like all religions) and trying to exist and function without its King ... Christ Jesus being in the picture. You cannot have a king without Messiah first, who was rejected 2,000 years ago. Just the same, you cannot have a kingdom without a king.

My wife's Aunty (and her cousins) is great proof the Lord is saving Jews. Her Grandmother was the sole survival out of her whole family and name in Europe, who somehow survived the Holocaust by escaping to England by boat, and later immigrating to New Zealand to tell her story (and some today deny the Holocaust!?).

In regards to my wife's cousins ... although they are Jewish they don't make a big thing out of it nor Israel, but they do about their salvation in Jesus. Does this mean they have abandoned their people? No way! She runs a homestay (B&B) and many of the people her say in her house are Israelis where she can get opportunity to share their Messiah with. Praise the Lord!! The very reason Jews are being grafted back into the vine again, and the very reason that after Israel as a nation realizes that they have been deceived by a political peace treaty and the Antichrist (the false messiah and false prince) will all Israel be saved. That's the geographical one Brother!

Richest blessings from Downunder,

Tom.

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer (the Lord Jesus), and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." Romans 11: 25-32

Contents.I.Guestbook.I.The Holy Bible Links.I.Website Links.I.Contact I Free Search.I Home