Replacement Theology

[Edward]

I'll save you some time. Here's some OPC BCO:

Sorry, too slow. I looked last night, and there is a significant difference between the two denominations with regard to deacons. I was planning to devote some time after church to a new thread on the views toward deacons, and I might still do so looking at some other Presbyterian (in fact and in name) denominations.

But the gentlemen in question is a PCA, not an OPC deacon, so our higher standards would apply.

" Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first"

Neither.

The men of the congregation who fill these roles aren't "mine."

Although our pastor delegates the training of our officers to other ruling and teaching elders, I would hold him primarily, and the session secondarily responsible in any shortcomings as to their trainng and examination. And he is the one that presides over the ordinations.

You advised me to apologize to "my" deacons, if I rate their orthodoxy any less vital to church health than than I rate the orthodoxy of elders (I'm trying to supply your original comment with additional clarity).

Yes, you did fully understand my comment and re-state it fairly.

In light of the above, I consider your advice meaningless.

You are certainly free to do so. At my age, however, I have found it sometimes more beneficial to ponder on what my critics say than to listen to the sweet applause of my supporters. But I would not undertake to offer you advice on this, as I understand how you regard my opinions.

As soon as you show me (chapter and verse, or chapter and paragraph) how I've slighted deacons generally, or OPC deacons in particular

Thought I had done so, but here, again:

Your views would probably be "out of accord" with a strict reading of the Standards. But deacons aren't being appointed to an office with a teaching function, but service, "waiting tables" as the apostles called it, Act.6:2.

and I'll add in this:

According to the Word deacons needn't have the same level of theological acumen as elders. Both officers are bound to the same Standards, but that doesn't mean deacons must have exactly the same level of familiarity with them that should characterize the men actually charged with the duty of maintaining the church's doctrinal fidelity.

In the Reformed Church, new members typically take a vow to the church's confession, the same as their leaders. While, unlike the Reformed Church, our members do not take a membership oath to affirm the church's confession; if they did, we would not expect them to have the same level of commitment to them that their deacons vowed. Members all are presumably at different levels of "orthodox" understanding; the orthodoxy of the officers is "more important" than that of Joe Disciple, only in that Joe has a ways to go before he's officer material.

What do you know about how I as a member of a session would go about vetting prospective deacons? Very little.

More than a little, based upon your posts here.

extends to my reluctance to second guess the wisdom of the session of Edward's distant congregation.

A VERY well done insult. I do appreciate your skill.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Brothers, I apologize for my tone and comments that were definitely a little incendiary. I am sincerely interesting in working through these topics. It would have been better for me to introduce myself before jumping right into this conversation and dropping bombs.

I will spend some time formulating my questions in a way that aren't accusatory right off the bat.

Peter,

I likewise apologize for my tone. I got a little over-zealous in my comments. I think you're genuinely trying to wrestle with some concepts and I'm duty bound to be patient with people toward that end. I probably get triggered a little too much by the standard appeals to land promises and the injunction that it's "obvious" that the Lord is making a promise that sticks only withe the physical descendants of Israel. I simply do not see it that way and I think several NT pericopes make plain that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise to his Seed is not, fundamentally, a land promise. I think even the prophecy of Ezekiel makes plain, in vivid imagery, how even the "temple" cannot be contained within the borders of Israel. There are so many direct and indirect inferences that make the Promise much larger than what the Jews might inherit in a small land parcel.

That said, I think it's pretty clear that the Reformed can differ a little about ethnic Israel. I certainly would not want to be on the side of any idea that simply dismisses as irrelevant that God probably has a plan to gather back in the branches that were broken off but I also see that as being brought back into the one Root of which they have been cut out. It's not healthy, in my view, to either dismiss them as irrelevant or "overplay" the Covenant promises and miss the import of Christ being the ultimate Nexus of that Promise. Hebrews, in my estimation, makes plain that even when the Israelites possessed the land they looked forward to an eternal rest - a heavenly country and that all who had faith would always look forward to a heavenly country and not find any ultimate fulfillment to God's Promise while the Curse remains until the Lord comes again.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I see a lot of Messianic Judaism as clinging to "weak and beggarly" elements of the world that were fulfilled in Christ. In their insistence on being distinctive they are not reforming or progressing Christianity but devolving and trying to go back to what the author of Hebrews would have reproved in the strongest possible terms. The injuction is precisely in seeing Christ as the fulfillment of all those types and that the heavenly worship is much more "real" and more excellent of a ministry than anything they possessed. It's the difference between clinging to the shadow when you have the ability to cling to the Person.

When one looks at Romans 14-15, those who are "weak" are those who still maintain ceremonial scruples. It's understandable that a 1st Century convert to Christianity would find it difficult to cast off all cleanliness and ceremonial aspects. What's not understandable is to insist on a form of institutional weakness that insists that a Jewish convert is not a "Christian" but a "Messianic Jew" who will not only take on the scruples of a weak faith but perpetuate it as normative for the Jew who has been converted to Christ.

Finally, I'll just state a built in "allergy" to claims that people are recovering what the Church fully lost in the past. I stand in the Reformed tradition and not the Revolutionary tradition. Yes, in the course of time, there are heterodox elements that have crept into the Church and refomation is always necessary. Yet, the Reformers have never thought of themselves as creating ideas de novo through academic investigation and peering with some 2000 year telescope to figure out what Christianity really was like until (presumably) all traces of that orthodoxy rapidly disappeared from view and we have no evidence of its vestiges. There are all sorts of theories that posit that in one form or another. Consider, for example, N.T. Wright who claims to know the Jews of Paul's day better than Paul himself could express it. No, we can't possibly understand Paul's concern in Romans and Galatians and elsewhere without the aid of N.T. Wright's research into how the Jews *really* thought about grace and salvation. Only then are we able to bring Wright's understanding to the words of Paul and Christ to gain a "new perspective" on the Gospel. Why is this necessary? Because the Church was incapable of understanding Paul until N.T. Wright came around.

What I'm suggesting to Messianic Jews (not that they care what I suggest) is that they don't have any special warrant or infallible skill to pole vault over history or use a 2000 year telescope to determine what the real perspective on Paul is. I show respect to the Jewish tradition of Jesus' day by looking at the centuries of development that occurred in the works of Edersheim and others who put Jesus and the Apostles in their Jewish context. I don't assume I have the right to ignore that history and make of that context what I want. I think some Messianic Jews take it as a given (as Liberals and cultists are prone to do) to assume that Church history and Christian thought bears no weight in the discussion. How could a Church, started by Jewish followers of Christ, simply veer into the Church history we have? Irrelevant. It's taken as a given that it jumped off the tracks in earliest records and that it's best to go back to uninspired Targum or other writings to determine who the Apostles {i]really[/i] were.

That, friend, is dangerous and I would entreat you to treat it as an inherently dangerous approach to Biblical truth.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Ed,
Quoting my words back to me isn't the "chapter and verse, or chapter and paragraph" I need, so to know what I might have to apologize for. As of now, you're just telling me you chose to take offense at my words. That's truly, seriously regretful; but I won't pretend that's an apology.

You're saying, "You should have a different opinion. I don't like it. Change your mind. If not, your character is suspect." Basis please?

You need to show, using Scripture and/or my governing documents, the substance and manner in which I've contravened them. Until then, far as anyone knows, you just have an attitude you're taking out on me.

OPC FG Ch.XXV, para.3 describes the general preparation for office-bearing required in our church. Deference to Scripture directions is evident in the text. Discretion is left to Sessions as to how this is accomplished. Maybe your congregation or the PCA as a whole has, in fact, "higher" standards than the OPC. I'm not sure how that measure can be made objectively. Does "standardized testing" equate to higher standards, or just alternative methodology? Sounds like a judgment call to me.

But I would not undertake to offer you advice on this, as I understand how you regard my opinions.

But you already offered the advice. And in it, the deacons (presumably) of the congregation I serve you characterized as being in some sense my subjects, my minions; or that perhaps I considered them such and treated them as base inferiors. You certainly claim that my regard for these men is belittling, that I show poor regard for "my" deacons.

Since no one in a non-hierarchical denomination like mine (or yours) can "have" deacons in the sense you seem to present the notion, your advice is "meaningless" in that it lacks the cogency that would allow me the opportunity to supply a rational response.

You quote me, like my words are self-evidently crude and insulting, to deacons everywhere. Talk about a bad construction.

And this:

A VERY well done insult. I do appreciate your skill.

Just so I'm clear:

By refusing to prejudice the Session that trained you, approved you, ordained and installed you to one of Christ's offices; by granting they have superior wisdom in all things pertaining to you, than I can hope to have through the impersonal medium of the internet, so prone to misjudgment and misunderstanding; thus have I insulted you.

Or was the insult, in your mind, daring to say the same thing about my respect for your Session, that I thought was appropriate for Peter's Session?



I'm pretty sure I'm treading the line of violating 2Tim.2:24, "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome...." So, I'm pretty much done defending myself.

 

[pkananen]

Brothers, I apologize for my tone and comments that were definitely a little incendiary. I am sincerely interesting in working through these topics. It would have been better for me to introduce myself before jumping right into this conversation and dropping bombs.

I will spend some time formulating my questions in a way that aren't accusatory right off the bat.

Peter,

I likewise apologize for my tone. I got a little over-zealous in my comments. I think you're genuinely trying to wrestle with some concepts and I'm duty bound to be patient with people toward that end. I probably get triggered a little too much by the standard appeals to land promises and the injunction that it's "obvious" that the Lord is making a promise that sticks only withe the physical descendants of Israel. I simply do not see it that way and I think several NT pericopes make plain that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise to his Seed is not, fundamentally, a land promise. I think even the prophecy of Ezekiel makes plain, in vivid imagery, how even the "temple" cannot be contained within the borders of Israel. There are so many direct and indirect inferences that make the Promise much larger than what the Jews might inherit in a small land parcel.

That said, I think it's pretty clear that the Reformed can differ a little about ethnic Israel. I certainly would not want to be on the side of any idea that simply dismisses as irrelevant that God probably has a plan to gather back in the branches that were broken off but I also see that as being brought back into the one Root of which they have been cut out. It's not healthy, in my view, to either dismiss them as irrelevant or "overplay" the Covenant promises and miss the import of Christ being the ultimate Nexus of that Promise. Hebrews, in my estimation, makes plain that even when the Israelites possessed the land they looked forward to an eternal rest - a heavenly country and that all who had faith would always look forward to a heavenly country and not find any ultimate fulfillment to God's Promise while the Curse remains until the Lord comes again.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I see a lot of Messianic Judaism as clinging to "weak and beggarly" elements of the world that were fulfilled in Christ. In their insistence on being distinctive they are not reforming or progressing Christianity but devolving and trying to go back to what the author of Hebrews would have reproved in the strongest possible terms. The injuction is precisely in seeing Christ as the fulfillment of all those types and that the heavenly worship is much more "real" and more excellent of a ministry than anything they possessed. It's the difference between clinging to the shadow when you have the ability to cling to the Person.

When one looks at Romans 14-15, those who are "weak" are those who still maintain ceremonial scruples. It's understandable that a 1st Century convert to Christianity would find it difficult to cast off all cleanliness and ceremonial aspects. What's not understandable is to insist on a form of institutional weakness that insists that a Jewish convert is not a "Christian" but a "Messianic Jew" who will not only take on the scruples of a weak faith but perpetuate it as normative for the Jew who has been converted to Christ.

Finally, I'll just state a built in "allergy" to claims that people are recovering what the Church fully lost in the past. I stand in the Reformed tradition and not the Revolutionary tradition. Yes, in the course of time, there are heterodox elements that have crept into the Church and refomation is always necessary. Yet, the Reformers have never thought of themselves as creating ideas de novo through academic investigation and peering with some 2000 year telescope to figure out what Christianity really was like until (presumably) all traces of that orthodoxy rapidly disappeared from view and we have no evidence of its vestiges. There are all sorts of theories that posit that in one form or another. Consider, for example, N.T. Wright who claims to know the Jews of Paul's day better than Paul himself could express it. No, we can't possibly understand Paul's concern in Romans and Galatians and elsewhere without the aid of N.T. Wright's research into how the Jews *really* thought about grace and salvation. Only then are we able to bring Wright's understanding to the words of Paul and Christ to gain a "new perspective" on the Gospel. Why is this necessary? Because the Church was incapable of understanding Paul until N.T. Wright came around.

What I'm suggesting to Messianic Jews (not that they care what I suggest) is that they don't have any special warrant or infallible skill to pole vault over history or use a 2000 year telescope to determine what the real perspective on Paul is. I show respect to the Jewish tradition of Jesus' day by looking at the centuries of development that occurred in the works of Edersheim and others who put Jesus and the Apostles in their Jewish context. I don't assume I have the right to ignore that history and make of that context what I want. I think some Messianic Jews take it as a given (as Liberals and cultists are prone to do) to assume that Church history and Christian thought bears no weight in the discussion. How could a Church, started by Jewish followers of Christ, simply veer into the Church history we have? Irrelevant. It's taken as a given that it jumped off the tracks in earliest records and that it's best to go back to uninspired Targum or other writings to determine who the Apostles {i]really[/i] were.

That, friend, is dangerous and I would entreat you to treat it as an inherently dangerous approach to Biblical truth.

I understand your concern. We are all at risk of reading into the scriptures our particular pet theology or hermeneutic. It is too simplistic to leap over church history and pretend you've got it all figured out, and everyone before you was caught up by a spiritual stumbling block you've managed to avoid. But this also does not give us a right to shake off any challenges to longstanding tradition, either. After all, this is why we respect the Reformers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I understand your concern. We are all at risk of reading into the scriptures our particular pet theology or hermeneutic. It is too simplistic to leap over church history and pretend you've got it all figured out, and everyone before you was caught up by a spiritual stumbling block you've managed to avoid. But this also does not give us a right to shake off any challenges to longstanding tradition, either. After all, this is why we respect the Reformers.

Yes, but remember, the Reformers interacted with Church history informed by the doctrinal and historical developments of Church history and not ignorant of it assuming that such history was captive to a Western philosophical tradition. I don't think the same can be said of much of Messianic Jewish studies. Ask your average Messianic Jew what his study of the Cappodocian Fathers consists of...

 

[pkananen]

I understand your concern. We are all at risk of reading into the scriptures our particular pet theology or hermeneutic. It is too simplistic to leap over church history and pretend you've got it all figured out, and everyone before you was caught up by a spiritual stumbling block you've managed to avoid. But this also does not give us a right to shake off any challenges to longstanding tradition, either. After all, this is why we respect the Reformers.

Yes, but remember, the Reformers interacted with Church history informed by the doctrinal and historical developments of Church history and not ignorant of it assuming that such history was captive to a Western philosophical tradition. I don't think the same can be said of much of Messianic Jewish studies. Ask your average Messianic Jew what his study of the Cappodocian Fathers consists of...

It's certainly a young tradition in its revived state, but you cannot dismiss that this was the apostolic practice. But the movement concedes that there are a lot of question as to how to pick up where the early church left off. But for Jews who know their Messiah, it is indeed commendable that they follow God's unique call for them.

If you're interested in engaging with the best overview on the subject, I'd recommend Rudolph's and Willitts' book Introduction to Messianic Judaism - Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations.

 

[Edward]

So, I'm pretty much done defending myself.

Then I expect I best not continue the exchange.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's certainly a young tradition in its revived state, but you cannot dismiss that this was the apostolic practice.

I'm sorry but this is precisely the same reasoning that Pentecostals and Charismatics give. Just read Acts. We need to be just like them.

This is not how theology is done.

But for Jews who know their Messiah, it is indeed commendable that they follow God's unique call for them.

that is precisely what is up for debate. Whether what they are doing is commendable or rebellious. You assume that the young movement is on the right track. I ask, again, whether this movement is a reformation movement or revolutionary. Have they even understood the early Church and its development to be able to interact with it? Does it occur to them that the Church grew out of Jews and Gentiles to what it became and why, if Messianic Judaism is normative for Jews, did it disappear? This has the marks of the way cults form.

 

[pkananen]

It's certainly a young tradition in its revived state, but you cannot dismiss that this was the apostolic practice.

I'm sorry but this is precisely the same reasoning that Pentecostals and Charismatics give. Just read Acts. We need to be just like them.

This is not how theology is done.

I agree with this caution. We should indeed test their theology to see if it is Biblical. I cannot speak for all Messianic theology, but I have engaged with much of it that has deepened my relationship with Christ and my understanding of scripture.

But for Jews who know their Messiah, it is indeed commendable that they follow God's unique call for them.

that is precisely what is up for debate. Whether what they are doing is commendable or rebellious. You assume that the young movement is on the right track. I ask, again, whether this movement is a reformation movement or revolutionary. Have they even understood the early Church and its development to be able to interact with it? Does it occur to them that the Church grew out of Jews and Gentiles to what it became and why, if Messianic Judaism is normative for Jews, did it disappear? This has the marks of the way cults form.

I have been a Protestant all of my life. I intend to continue it this tradition all of my life. But it is amazing how splintered Protestantism is. The PCA represents 1 of 6 Presbyterian denominations in the USA alone. We've had splits in the last 50 years. We also don't know if our young movement is on the right track. My point in saying this is that it hasn't exactly been a clean line of tradition from the early church, let alone the Reformation ourselves.

We know that there are mysterious reasons that God chose to let the Jews enter a time of hardness. I would not claim that Messianic Judaism has ever been normative for Jews. But the apostles were indeed Jews living Torah observant lives who knew their Messiah. We should be overjoyed when Jews today encounter their Messiah, and live out their calling accordingly.

We must remember that Jesus was a fully-observant Jew, as were the apostles, and that we are reading Jewish scriptures. If we remove the Jewish context they wrote from, we are in danger ourselves of misunderstanding scripture. As the increasingly-Gentile church left behind its Jewish roots, we have surely lost perspective that has harmed our theology.

 

[AJ Castellitto]

Isn't there a prophetic element we are missing here...... That a remnant of the actual Jewish people will be converted..... So there will be faith but it will be possibly a short-term possibly semi-sporadic turning back unto the true God through Christ immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus.,..

I know we are not suppose to use current events to interpret scriptures.... But if the rest of the world continues to grow so dark and cold, the idea of an isolated Israel producing some true converts wouldnt seem so far fetched as far as an end times scenario is concerned..... This scenario does not take away from Reformed belief in any way as far as I can tell....?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I agree with this caution. We should indeed test their theology to see if it is Biblical. I cannot speak for all Messianic theology, but I have engaged with much of it that has deepened my relationship with Christ and my understanding of scripture.

It is precisely the "depth" of your appreciation for Scripture that has not yet been demonstrated. I see a lot of fairly unartful attempts to point to Jeremiah 31 and tell everyone how obvious something is or an appeal to the Acts of the Apostles and say: "See! Observant Jews!" Your line of argumentation is very crude and we haven't even gotten to issues of basic orthodoxy.

I'm actually more interested in knowing how this theology has affected your understanding of the historic formulations around the Godhead. Have you bought into the arguments about the Trinity and Hypostatic union too as "deepening" your relationship with Christ?

I have been a Protestant all of my life. I intend to continue it this tradition all of my life. But it is amazing how splintered Protestantism is. The PCA represents 1 of 6 Presbyterian denominations in the USA alone. We've had splits in the last 50 years. We also don't know if our young movement is on the right track. My point in saying this is that it hasn't exactly been a clean line of tradition from the early church, let alone the Reformation ourselves.

We know that there are mysterious reasons that God chose to let the Jews enter a time of hardness. I would not claim that Messianic Judaism has ever been normative for Jews. But the apostles were indeed Jews living Torah observant lives who knew their Messiah. We should be overjoyed when Jews today encounter their Messiah, and live out their calling accordingly.

We must remember that Jesus was a fully-observant Jew, as were the apostles, and that we are reading Jewish scriptures. If we remove the Jewish context they wrote from, we are in danger ourselves of misunderstanding scripture. As the increasingly-Gentile church left behind its Jewish roots, we have surely lost perspective that has harmed our theology.

Yes, there is division withing Protestantism but I'm referring to the Reformed Confessions, which stands in 90% correspondence to the rest of catholic Christianity and the other soteriological emphases trace themselves back to the early Church.

I know you've apparently already drunk the Kool-Aid on this but I'm simply not persuaded that the Apostles, following the Resurrection, were following some sort of separated "Messianic Judaism" while setting up a Gentile Church that followed practices peculiar for the "Gentile Christians". I don't think you've had much training in hermeneutics or exegesis but the argument that we are to "read between the lines" and construct some sort of Messianic Judaism based on watching a few habits of Paul and Peter is the absolute worst form of Biblical exegesis and systematic theology I can imagine given that broader context and message of their ministry. It frankly reminds me of the Roman Catholics who insist to us that they are practicing an ancient devotion to Mary that has been believed and practiced since the early Church. It's so important, in fact, that its practice is conspicuously absent from the didactic teaching of the New Testament!

 

[AJ Castellitto]

This is interesting Peter..... Wonder if what you are saying has some validity but of course I strongly agree with brother Rich's wise sentiments as well

 

[pkananen]

Isn't there a prophetic element we are missing here...... That a remnant of the actual Jewish people will be converted..... So there will be faith but it will be possibly a short-term possibly semi-sporadic turning back unto the true God through Christ immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus.,..

I know we are not suppose to use current events to interpret scriptures.... But if the rest of the world continues to grow so dark and cold, the idea of an isolated Israel producing some true converts wouldnt seem so far fetched as far as an end times scenario is concerned..... This scenario does not take away from Reformed belief in any way as far as I can tell....?

There are approximately 20,000 Yeshua-worshipping Jews in Israel today.

What is the most contested piece of land in the world? If God has abandoned his land and his people Israel, then why are the darkest forces of humanity determined to make it their own today? If Israel represents all that God has cast aside, why has the evil of Islam set their sights primarily on Israel? Is Satan in conflict against Satan? And yes, Israel as a whole, continues to reject their savior.

This is what is inscribed on the inner octagon of the Islamic Dome of the Rock.

S In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has
no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has
Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.
SE Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be
on him, and may God have mercy. O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion
E nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of
Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit
from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is)
NE better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is
in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is
sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a
N servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth
His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.
Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus
NW son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies,
and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of
the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!
W When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. God (Himself) is witness that there is no God
save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him,
SW the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book
differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso
disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) Lo! God is swift at reckoning!

The implications of this are too large to ignore. Satan has made his intentions known.

Joel 3, Zechariah 12-14, Ezekiel 37-38, and Daniel 12:2 all talk of Christ entering into judgment against Israel's enemies, who have divided up his land and killed his people. Israel will finally understand, in surviving remnant, the truth of their Messiah as they mourn over him.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If Israel represents all that God has cast aside...

To reject your ideas about the nature of the Covenants is not to reject the idea that God is preserving a remnant to be gathered back in. I still believe that the Gospel is to the Jew first and then to the Gentile but I don't believe that Jew and Gentile have separate Christianities. It is precisely because I believe Christ is the Elect One and that Jews and Gentiles are elected in Him as the Mediator that God is gathering all in.

 

[rickclayfan]

Isn't there a prophetic element we are missing here...... That a remnant of the actual Jewish people will be converted..... So there will be faith but it will be possibly a short-term possibly semi-sporadic turning back unto the true God through Christ immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus.,..

I know we are not suppose to use current events to interpret scriptures.... But if the rest of the world continues to grow so dark and cold, the idea of an isolated Israel producing some true converts wouldnt seem so far fetched as far as an end times scenario is concerned..... This scenario does not take away from Reformed belief in any way as far as I can tell....?

There are approximately 20,000 Yeshua-worshipping Jews in Israel today.

What is the most contested piece of land in the world? If God has abandoned his land and his people Israel, then why are the darkest forces of humanity determined to make it their own today? If Israel represents all that God has cast aside, why has the evil of Islam set their sights primarily on Israel? Is Satan in conflict against Satan? And yes, Israel as a whole, continues to reject their savior.

This is what is inscribed on the inner octagon of the Islamic Dome of the Rock.

S In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has
no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignity and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has
Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.
SE Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet.
O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation. The blessing of God be on him and peace be
on him, and may God have mercy. O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion
E nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of
Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit
from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is)
NE better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is
in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is
sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a
N servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth
His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.
Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus
NW son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies,
and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of
the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!
W When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path. God (Himself) is witness that there is no God
save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him,
SW the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book
differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso
disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) Lo! God is swift at reckoning!

The implications of this are too large to ignore. Satan has made his intentions known.

Joel 3, Zechariah 12-14, Ezekiel 37-38, and Daniel 12:2 all talk of Christ entering into judgment against Israel's enemies, who have divided up his land and killed his people. Israel will finally understand, in surviving remnant, the truth of their Messiah as they mourn over him.

I was thinking the other day - what if the Dome of the Rock was sovereignly ordained by God to be placed and constructed where it is with the sole intention of preventing the Jews from building a temple on that site (making the destruction of Jerusalem of AD 70 perpetual). This would be to curb further apostasy and delusion. May be a bit radical of a thought, but interesting nonetheless. Check out Owen's exposition of Genesis 49:10 in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, volume 1.

 

[pkananen]

If Israel represents all that God has cast aside...

To reject your ideas about the nature of the Covenants is not to reject the idea that God is preserving a remnant to be gathered back in. I still believe that the Gospel is to the Jew first and then to the Gentile but I don't believe that Jew and Gentile have separate Christianities. It is precisely because I believe Christ is the Elect One and that Jews and Gentiles are elected in Him as the Mediator that God is gathering all in.

I agree that they do not have separate Christianities.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

Peter,

Does God have two peoples or one people?

If Israel represents all that God has cast aside...

To reject your ideas about the nature of the Covenants is not to reject the idea that God is preserving a remnant to be gathered back in. I still believe that the Gospel is to the Jew first and then to the Gentile but I don't believe that Jew and Gentile have separate Christianities. It is precisely because I believe Christ is the Elect One and that Jews and Gentiles are elected in Him as the Mediator that God is gathering all in.

I agree that they do not have separate Christianities.

 

[AJ Castellitto]

Sorry this became such a heated thread, let me just add that everything Rich has said has been spot on! Let's not forget that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law and it is finished..... There is no salvation outside of Christ and Covenant Theology is vital to our full understanding of scriptures and salvation.... God will take care of the rest in His own time.

 

[pkananen]

I was thinking the other day - what if the Dome of the Rock was sovereignly ordained by God to be placed and constructed where it is with the sole intention of preventing the Jews from building a temple on that site (making the destruction of Jerusalem of AD 70 perpetual). This would be to curb further apostasy and delusion. May be a bit radical of a thought, but interesting nonetheless. Check out Owen's exposition of Genesis 49:10 in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, volume 1.

This is where it gets interesting. The temple did not equate to delusion and apostasy for Jewish believers, even into the book of Acts well after Jesus had ascended into heaven. This is very clear in the Bible.

Remember John 2:17?

17*His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

The early believers worshipped in the temple often:

Acts 2

46*And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47*praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 3:1

Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.

Acts 5:42

And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.

Acts 6 - Pay careful attention to what was done when Stephen was seized:

10*But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11*Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12*And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, 13*and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14*for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.” 15*And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

Acts 21 - Paul was so eager to show he had not rejected his Torah observance he paid for the offerings for 4 under a vow as they went to the temple.

17*When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. 18*On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19*After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20*And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21*and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22*What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23*Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24*take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. 25*But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26*Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

Acts 21 - Paul is accused of violating the law. This is speaking of the breaking down of the wall of hostility as in Ephesians 2.

27*When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28*crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

Acts 25 - In his defense before Caesar, Paul confirms he has not spoken against the temple:

7*When he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him that they could not prove. 8*Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.”

In short, the apostle who wrote most of the New Testament participated in temple life, including sacrifices and offerings. Does our theology accommodate this? Does our understanding of Paul's epistles support these events? In a later post I will provide my understanding of how this is reconciled with passages like Hebrews 8-10. But we cannot deny these events or downplay them.

 

[pkananen]

Peter,

Does God have two peoples or one people?

If Israel represents all that God has cast aside...

To reject your ideas about the nature of the Covenants is not to reject the idea that God is preserving a remnant to be gathered back in. I still believe that the Gospel is to the Jew first and then to the Gentile but I don't believe that Jew and Gentile have separate Christianities. It is precisely because I believe Christ is the Elect One and that Jews and Gentiles are elected in Him as the Mediator that God is gathering all in.

I agree that they do not have separate Christianities.

He has one people.

 

[rickclayfan]

I was thinking the other day - what if the Dome of the Rock was sovereignly ordained by God to be placed and constructed where it is with the sole intention of preventing the Jews from building a temple on that site (making the destruction of Jerusalem of AD 70 perpetual). This would be to curb further apostasy and delusion. May be a bit radical of a thought, but interesting nonetheless. Check out Owen's exposition of Genesis 49:10 in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, volume 1.

This is where it gets interesting. The temple did not equate to delusion and apostasy for Jewish believers, even into the book of Acts well after Jesus had ascended into heaven. This is very clear in the Bible.

Remember John 2:17?

17*His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

The early believers worshipped in the temple often:

Acts 2

46*And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47*praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 3:1

Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.

Acts 5:42

And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.

Acts 6 - Pay careful attention to what was done when Stephen was seized:

10*But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11*Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12*And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, 13*and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14*for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.” 15*And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

Acts 21 - Paul was so eager to show he had not rejected his Torah observance he paid for the offerings for 4 under a vow as they went to the temple.

17*When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. 18*On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19*After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20*And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21*and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22*What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23*Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24*take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. 25*But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26*Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

Acts 21 - Paul is accused of violating the law. This is speaking of the breaking down of the wall of hostility as in Ephesians 2.

27*When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28*crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

Acts 25 - In his defense before Caesar, Paul confirms he has not spoken against the temple:

7*When he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him that they could not prove. 8*Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.”

In short, the apostle who wrote most of the New Testament participated in temple life, including sacrifices and offerings. Does our theology accommodate this? Does our understanding of Paul's epistles support these events? In a later post I will provide my understanding of how this is reconciled with passages like Hebrews 8-10. But we cannot deny these events or downplay them.

What need is there to seek reconciliation when we read in 1 Cor. 9:20, "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law."? Your zeal to preserve that which God has abolished has led you to stand in contradiction to Scripture, especially Hebrews. I wouldn't not be surprised if your "reconciliation" (reinterpretation) of Hebrews 8-10 will just be a fine show of eisegesis.

And, as was mentioned before, Acts is not a prescriptive, didactic book, but a historical, descriptive book. Let us not use the Charismatic hermeneutic here.

 

[pkananen]

What need is there to seek reconciliation when we read in 1 Cor. 9:20, "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law."? Your zeal to preserve that which God has abolished has led you to stand in contradiction to Scripture, especially Hebrews.

Have you forgotten about the time Paul opposed Peter to his face when he acted hypocritically around Jewish and Gentile believers? In fact, Paul wrote an entire book about this! So you're saying Paul condemned the hypocrisy so much he wrote Galatians, but then he had no problem doing it himself? This was a very calculated move on their part. Here are the words again:

They are all zealous for the law, 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come...Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

So Paul has an opportunity to clarify his position and he intentionally shows that what they have been told is wrong. This is not a case of becoming a Jew to win Jews.

I wouldn't not be surprised if your "reconciliation" (reinterpretation) of Hebrews 8-10 will just be a fine show of eisegesis.

And, as was mentioned before, Acts is not a prescriptive, didactic book, but a historical, descriptive book. Let us not use the Charismatic hermeneutic here.

We will see. Keep in mind this is not my private interpretation. I have no secret knowledge. But I have spent a lot of time reading and wrestling with this topic, and there is a lot of interesting work being done on this topic now.

 

[rickclayfan]

Have you forgotten about the time Paul opposed Peter to his face when he acted hypocritically around Jewish and Gentile believers?

Your fight is not with me, but with Scripture. The words of 1 Cor. 9:20 are not my own, but God's. The verse clearly says that he observed the law to win them over. He was acting on the principles he set down in Rom. 14.

So in essence what you are trying to say is that the OT law in its fullness is still to be observed today?

 

[pkananen]

Have you forgotten about the time Paul opposed Peter to his face when he acted hypocritically around Jewish and Gentile believers?

Your fight is not with me, but with Scripture. The words of 1 Cor. 9:20 are not my own, but God's. The verse clearly says that he observed the law to win them over. He was acting on the principles he set down in Rom. 14.

Brother, thanks for engaging with me and maintaining a civil discourse. I hope this can be informative for all of us without being filled with tension or frustration.

It's not that simple. Paul said he became as a Jew to win Jews. Becoming "as a Jew" is not equivalent to Torah observance! You are making Paul out to be a hypocrite. The more reasonable answer is that you are reading into "become as a Jew" what is not actually there. Based on Paul's actions, he is observant of the law. And yet he must do more to "become as Jew". In his ministry, Jesus had plenty of corrections to Pharisaic Judaism as well, but he never broke Torah. The more likely answer is that there were Pharisaic or Rabbinic practices that went beyond Torah that Paul observed. Perhaps he indulged unbelieving Jews so as not to offend on these matter. Look at Mark 7 for an example:

7*Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2*they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3*(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders...
18*And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
19*since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Jesus was not declaring unkosher food clean, he was just rebuking the extraneous washings prescribed by the Pharisees.

So in essence what you are trying to say is that the OT law in its fullness is still to be observed today?

What was Paul's rule in all of the churches? Gentiles should remain Gentiles. Jews should remain Jews. God gave the Mosaic law to the Jews, not us. Remember the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15?

In modern times the Messianic community has been debating how to deal with this for many years, and there are various opinions. But there is no temple so Torah does not allow sacrifices anyway.

 

[rickclayfan]

What was Paul's rule in all of the churches? Gentiles should remain Gentiles. Jews should remain Jews. God gave the Mosaic law to the Jews, not us. Remember the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? The Messianic community has been debating how to deal with this for many years, and there are various opinions.

Forgive my fervor and passion. It is in my nature to be so. Sometimes I may be a bit overzealous. You are wrestling with this issue. I would suggest you read Owen's Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This issue is too vast to cover in a forum. He will be of great assistance in your pursuit after the truth. Hebrews was written with the intention of encouraging the Jews to hold to their profession of faith and not return to Judaism. It will be quite a reading project, but if you are truly and sincerely seeking the truth, that should be no problem to you. Here's a link: http://www.heritagebooks.org/products/Hebrews%2C-7-volumes.html

 

[Jerome Rosana]

I grew up in a southern bap 5- 12 years old (i remember somehow the teachings, i guess it is Premil Dispensational) 17-27 years old (10 yrs) i were in a wesleyan-arminian church (no doctrine of eschatology taught during sermons and discipleship classes in my entire life attending our local church)
28 years old after I got married me and my wife converted to reformed and found out amillenialism/covenant theology/infant baptism...we find them more clearer and biblical and easier to understand the events in the bible. before I can not understand some new testament verses but when one of the URC pastor "Michael Brown" author of Sacred Bond came here to the Philippines for a 2 day conference... Covenant Theology was like A water inside a crystal clear glass...

 

[pkananen]

I grew up in a southern bap 5- 12 years old (i remember somehow the teachings, i guess it is Premil Dispensational) 17-27 years old (10 yrs) i were in a wesleyan-arminian church (no doctrine of eschatology taught during sermons and discipleship classes in my entire life attending our local church)
28 years old after I got married me and my wife converted to reformed and found out amillenialism/covenant theology/infant baptism...we find them more clearer and biblical and easier to understand the events in the bible. before I can not understand some new testament verses but when one of the URC pastor "Michael Brown" author of Sacred Bond came here to the Philippines for a 2 day conference... Covenant Theology was like A water inside a crystal clear glass...

Sounds like you've had an interesting spiritual journey. When I came into the the Reformed tradition, I was thankful to learn about the doctrines of grace. This helped me understand so much about God's sovereign grace, the problem of evil, and how God can justly judge.

Making appeals to doctrine based on simplicity alone isn't very convincing, though. Universal reconciliation is a lot simpler to understand than the doctrines of grace, but it doesn't make it right. I like a lot of Covenant Theology, but there are parts of it that also can't provide answers to scripture, in my opinion.

To be clear, I have foundational problems with dispensationalism. I also have exegetical and hermeneutical problems with amillennialism, which I'm sure I'll be explaining at some point.

 

[pkananen]

What was Paul's rule in all of the churches? Gentiles should remain Gentiles. Jews should remain Jews. God gave the Mosaic law to the Jews, not us. Remember the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? The Messianic community has been debating how to deal with this for many years, and there are various opinions.

Forgive my fervor and passion. It is in my nature to be so. Sometimes I may be a bit overzealous. You are wrestling with this issue. I would suggest you read Owen's Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. This issue is too vast to cover in a forum. He will be of great assistance in your pursuit after the truth. Hebrews was written with the intention of encouraging the Jews to hold to their profession of faith and not return to Judaism. It will be quite a reading project, but if you are truly and sincerely seeking the truth, that should be no problem to you. Here's a link: http://www.heritagebooks.org/products/Hebrews%2C-7-volumes.html

I'm sure it's an edifying work. I probably won't get a lot of time to dig into it now, but I'll try and take a look.

Based on your description, it seems like Owen begins from the traditional perspective that Hebrews was written to keep Jewish believers from returning to Jewish practice, especially temple worship. I just showed you how this is inconsistent with Paul's actions, because he was eager to show that he was practicing Judaism. I am sure that most of the work is wonderful, but I'm quite familiar with the historical view on Hebrews.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was thinking the other day - what if the Dome of the Rock was sovereignly ordained by God to be placed and constructed where it is with the sole intention of preventing the Jews from building a temple on that site (making the destruction of Jerusalem of AD 70 perpetual). This would be to curb further apostasy and delusion. May be a bit radical of a thought, but interesting nonetheless. Check out Owen's exposition of Genesis 49:10 in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, volume 1.

This is where it gets interesting. The temple did not equate to delusion and apostasy for Jewish believers, even into the book of Acts well after Jesus had ascended into heaven. This is very clear in the Bible.

Remember John 2:17?

17*His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

The early believers worshipped in the temple often:

Acts 2

46*And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47*praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 3:1

Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.

Acts 5:42

And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.

Acts 6 - Pay careful attention to what was done when Stephen was seized:

10*But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. 11*Then they secretly instigated men who said, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12*And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, 13*and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14*for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.” 15*And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

Acts 21 - Paul was so eager to show he had not rejected his Torah observance he paid for the offerings for 4 under a vow as they went to the temple.

17*When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. 18*On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19*After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20*And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, 21*and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. 22*What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23*Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24*take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. 25*But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26*Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

Acts 21 - Paul is accused of violating the law. This is speaking of the breaking down of the wall of hostility as in Ephesians 2.

27*When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28*crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

Acts 25 - In his defense before Caesar, Paul confirms he has not spoken against the temple:

7*When he had arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him that they could not prove. 8*Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.”

In short, the apostle who wrote most of the New Testament participated in temple life, including sacrifices and offerings. Does our theology accommodate this? Does our understanding of Paul's epistles support these events? In a later post I will provide my understanding of how this is reconciled with passages like Hebrews 8-10. But we cannot deny these events or downplay them.

I will be saving this particular post as an example of where really bad exegesis and hermeneutical method take a person. This is exact formula for error.

1. Start with a principle.
2. Take a historical narrative and infer the principle.
3. Make a didactic principle out of the inferred principle.
4. Make that didactic principle the controlling principle by which one can even overshadow the clear didactic teaching of the Epistles.

This is precisely why you will not get any traction in your defective theology of the Covenants with people properly trained to handle the Word of God. You may capture the weak minded and unstable. This being a Confessional Board, guided by sound hermeneutical principles, does not abide with this folly.

You assume that what you learned before you came to the Reformed faith was the proper way to view the Scriptures and so everything that you might otherwise learn (in terms of proper methodology) is being pulled through the strainer of your Messianic Jewish methodology. I don't care how long you've been Reformed or how much study you've done - a poor method is a poor method. A defective hermeneutic is a defective hermeneutic.

I've been incredibly blessed by the works of Alfred Edersheim - a Jewish convert to the Reformed faith and a scholar in Jewish tradition. Whereas Edersheim has a healthy view of this tradition and provides a backdrop to the Scriptures (especially social life and the various writings and schools of thought that swirled around Jesus' day) he never takes the traditions as normative nor does he ever posit a "Messianic" Judaism.

In fact, the irony is that the Church has *always* had in its possession what worship "looked like" for the observant Jew. Where? The Scriptures themselves?! Why, how did we miss all this time what Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy commanded to the observant Jew? We had no idea that people made vows at the Temple in the times of Jesus. Where did that come from?!

In other words, we don't need some texts, lost from our common understanding, to interact with what the Apostles were doing. We don't need "Messianic Jews" to explain: "Now, you see, I know you guys have been captive for 2000 years to your Western traditions but what we see here is something that the Jews practiced at the time of the Temple."

We'll reply - "Yes, we know. We read about such things all the time. We understand what God required of His People. We take those Scriptures very seriously. We meditate on them. But we also read them in light of what the Apostles taught us about their shadowy fulfillment and how Christ broke down that wall of separation. We read about the destruction of the Temple and how Christ ultimately fulfills the vision of a people able to worship not in a copy of the heavenly sanctuary but, through the veil of Christ's flesh, in the heavenly sanctuary."

We'll also tell our Messianic Jewish friends that the Apostles didn't have any problem being called "Christians" and that they didn't separate themselves from Gentiles as a distinct group that still practiced their religion as if the Messiah had not come. We recognize that there is a transitory period where the Old Covenant is dying off and that even the author of Hebrews points that out. God did not choose to have the Temple destroyed at the moment Christ died and rose again but the curtain was torn. It was not unti 70 AD that the Temple was destroyed placing a PERIOD on the end of the Old Covenant era because, in case you didn't notice, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be an observant Jew without the physical Temple! How do we know that - you see, we read the Scriptures that were once for all delivered to the Saints.