An interesting thing happened this week when getting ready to submit my usual article. I didn’t have anything to write about or have any questions to answer, so I asked the Lord to show me what to write about.
A few minutes later a woman named Donna called me from Nevada, Tx. She said that she was singing a song this Sunday in her Assembly of God church and it had Hebrew lyrics and she wanted to know how to pronounce the words. Not knowing the song or the lyrics, I didn’t know what to tell her. I asked her why she was singing a foreign language she didn’t know to people that would not understand what she is saying. It would sound like gibberish to them, no communication. She said she never looked at it that way and I suggested she sing the English lyrics and forget the Hebrew for now.
Now, in our Wednesday Bible study we are going through the New Testament and learning how these books relate to believers today. We are currently in 1 Cor. 12 and discussing the Manifestations of the Spirit. We are right in the middle of Paul’s teaching about tongues and then I had an answer to my prayer of what to write about. Donna’s call is a perfect illustration of what Paul was trying to explain in 1 Cor. 12.
What are Tongues and the Interpretation of Tongues? The gift of Tongues is that ability to speak a language you don’t normally know and the gift of Interpretation in translating what was said for people to understand. It is not the “gibberish” that is seen today in many circles. Christians, Mormons, Hindus and religions all over the world have a history of “tongues” but that is not what Paul is talking about. This is a language that that has hermeneutic rules. In fact the word for “interpretation” in Greek is where we get the word “hermeneutic” from, which rules out the meaningless gibberish that passes for “tongues” in history.
Why were these gifts given in the first place? They were given as a sign to the unbeliever. Let me explain and give you several examples. In Isaiah 28.9-13 the prophet is telling the people that God has tried to communicate with them in clear, simple words so that even a child could understand, but they were continuing in unbelief as if they didn’t understand. He couldn’t have made it simpler. So, he says if they won’t listen to a clear, intelligible message. He was going to speak to them through a people with a foreign tongue, or language, and that would be a sign to them of His judgment.
The Lord was speaking about Assyria, Babylon, Greece and later Rome. Because they would not listen to the prophets and killed those sent to them, the people learned the hard way with a people who spoke in other tongues. So, tongues are a sign of judgment. So, let’s go to Acts 2 and see what happened. The people are gathered for the feast of Shavuot and were in the Temple. The Holy Spirit descends upon the believers gathered there and they speak in languages understood by all those from foreign lands (2.6-11) and there were at least 17 different languages. So, what happened?
Remember that in the time of Isaiah God had spoken plainly through he prophets, but they were like children who can be obstinate and stupid and didn’t listen. So He threatened them with another method. He would speak to them with foreigners speaking foreign languages, or tongues. Next week we will take it from there and go to Acts and Corinthians and show how tongues were used again by the Lord in the same way, why the Corinthians had no reason to be so desirous of them and how it relates today as a “sign” to the unbeliever.
The La Quinta meeting room in Alvarado, 1165 Hwy 67W Alvarado, TX. 76009. (Behind Sonic)
For information Email at wmriley17@yahoo.com
Olive Tree Image
upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
1 Corinthians 10:11 (NASB95)
Friday, January 19, 2007
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
1 Timothy 4:1 Clarified
Q. What is 1 Tim 4.1 talking about?
A. This is another misunderstood passage, so to fully understand it let’s do verses 1-5. In verse one it says that the Lord has very clearly sated in His Word that in the last days or later days known as the “Acharit Yamin” that some will fall away or depart form the faith. Now, you have to ask yourself “What was the faith?” What was the faith of the believers of the first century? What was Paul’s faith? He says in Acts 25.8 and 28.17 that he was Torah observant. He followed the commandments and the customs that didn’t go against any of them. All the people that wrote the epistles and the gospels kept the commandments. If Yeshua came to do away with them (which he said he didn’t in Matt 5.17) he sure didn’t get his message across to the believers before or after his death. So, the faith was the body of doctrinal truth found in the Scriptures, and that was obeyed and observed.
These believers kept the Sabbath, festivals, ate foods allowed in Lev 11 and Deut. 14 and did not eat those creatures not allowed in those chapters. He goes on to say in verse one that the reason they departed from that was because they were being deceived and paying attention to devilish doctrines. He says in verse 2 that they won’t listen because their hearing of the truth has been cauterized or seared. He then gives some examples in his time like forbidding marriage and abstaining from meat altogether. These items were done by the Gnostics, those involved in Mithraism and the ascetic lifestyle and so on. He said that these things were created by God to be received by those who believe and know the truth according to the Scriptures (Torah). That was the only Scripture they had. Everything created by God was good, but not everything was food. Many teach today that this verse means that one can eat pork. The pig was created by God and is good, but that doesn’t make it food.
Marriage is good, but some say no. Some don’t eat meat at all, and want others to do likewise but God never intended that to be a lifestyle sanctioned by Scripture. There are some who say that man didn’t eat meat before the flood, but it doesn’t say they didn’t either. But regardless of the view you take, you can eat biblically kosher meat today. Meat is to be received with gratitude (v 4) for it (the meat) is set aside, set apart, sanctified by means of the word of God (the Lev. 11 and Deut 14 list is were it was set apart to eat) and prayer (the blessings before and after meals-Deut. 8.10). So, in conclusion Paul is saying that in the last days there will be people deceived by false doctrine that will lead them away from the Torah and it’s instructions concerning marriage, meat and obviously implying other things as well.
A. This is another misunderstood passage, so to fully understand it let’s do verses 1-5. In verse one it says that the Lord has very clearly sated in His Word that in the last days or later days known as the “Acharit Yamin” that some will fall away or depart form the faith. Now, you have to ask yourself “What was the faith?” What was the faith of the believers of the first century? What was Paul’s faith? He says in Acts 25.8 and 28.17 that he was Torah observant. He followed the commandments and the customs that didn’t go against any of them. All the people that wrote the epistles and the gospels kept the commandments. If Yeshua came to do away with them (which he said he didn’t in Matt 5.17) he sure didn’t get his message across to the believers before or after his death. So, the faith was the body of doctrinal truth found in the Scriptures, and that was obeyed and observed.
These believers kept the Sabbath, festivals, ate foods allowed in Lev 11 and Deut. 14 and did not eat those creatures not allowed in those chapters. He goes on to say in verse one that the reason they departed from that was because they were being deceived and paying attention to devilish doctrines. He says in verse 2 that they won’t listen because their hearing of the truth has been cauterized or seared. He then gives some examples in his time like forbidding marriage and abstaining from meat altogether. These items were done by the Gnostics, those involved in Mithraism and the ascetic lifestyle and so on. He said that these things were created by God to be received by those who believe and know the truth according to the Scriptures (Torah). That was the only Scripture they had. Everything created by God was good, but not everything was food. Many teach today that this verse means that one can eat pork. The pig was created by God and is good, but that doesn’t make it food.
Marriage is good, but some say no. Some don’t eat meat at all, and want others to do likewise but God never intended that to be a lifestyle sanctioned by Scripture. There are some who say that man didn’t eat meat before the flood, but it doesn’t say they didn’t either. But regardless of the view you take, you can eat biblically kosher meat today. Meat is to be received with gratitude (v 4) for it (the meat) is set aside, set apart, sanctified by means of the word of God (the Lev. 11 and Deut 14 list is were it was set apart to eat) and prayer (the blessings before and after meals-Deut. 8.10). So, in conclusion Paul is saying that in the last days there will be people deceived by false doctrine that will lead them away from the Torah and it’s instructions concerning marriage, meat and obviously implying other things as well.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Peter's Vision: Not About Food Laws!
Q. Did Peter’s vision in Acts 10 change the dietary laws making all meats clean?
A. The vision in Acts 10 has nothing to do with food or God changing the dietary restrictions found in His own Word. This vision has to do with people and the best way to teach that is to take the chapter verse by verse to show you what it is teaching. This is a perfect example of how the Scriptures have been perverted by false teachers and hopefully some of you will see the truth after this article. Cornelius is a Roman soldier who has come to believe in the God of Israel, but he has not become “Jewish” which was the process in the first century. Some believed that a person could not be saved, or have full “status” unless they submitted to circumcision, which was the same thing as saying “become Jewish”. Cornelius does believe in the Lord but has not come to this status as yet, and he has a vision to call for Peter in Joppa (v 1-8). As they were on their way the next day (v 9) Peter goes up to the roof for a nap and he has a vision. He saw heaven opened, which is a Hebrew idiom for a deeper insight, a revelation, and he sees a four-cornered sheet come down with all kinds of creatures in it. God tells him to “eat” which means to “accept, understand and make this a part of you” in symbolic language.
Peter says no, that he has not “eaten” these unclean things before. The voice in the vision says “what God has cleansed should not be considered unclean”. Let’s look at this a little closer. A four-cornered garment is something man-made and also alludes to the “four corners of the earth (Gentiles)”. There were man-made doctrines in the first century that said Jews were not to go into the house of or eat with a Gentile. This doctrine was primarily a Pharisee doctrine but widely accepted and included in what was called “The 18 Edicts” which most Christians have never heard about. The problem was God never said that. There is no law in the Scriptures that says a Jew and Gentile cannot associate. God was breaking down these man-made divisions in this vision. Peter didn’t understand the vision at first (v 17). He sees this vision 3 times and the Spirit of God tells Peter 3 men are looking for him and that he should go with them without any fear (v 18-23) because HE sent them. So, the next day he goes with them and enters the house of Cornelius (v 25) and the key to the whole vision is found in v 28. Peter says that they knew that it was unlawful (the 18 Edicts contained in the Oral Law) for a Jew to associate with a Non-Jew or to even visit him, but that God had shown him that he should not call ANY MAN UNCLEAN OR UNHOLY.
Peter has been given the meaning of the vision and he says it is about accepting (eat with) the Gentiles who believe, that they are not unclean in God’s eyes. Then in verse 34-35 he goes on to say “I most certainly understand now that God is no respecter of persons (show partiality to) but in every nation (four-cornered garment= four-corners of the earth) the man who fears him (animals in the sheet) and does what is right is welcome to Him”. And as Peter was speaking the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles gathered there with visible signs following to confirm the fact. This showed that a Gentile did not have to “become Jewish” to be saved which was the prevailing doctrine of the day. God showed them that these Gentiles received the same spiritual benefits as the Jews without having to ”convert” to the prevailing man-made doctrines of Judaism.
Then in verses 45-48 there were Jews there who believed in Yeshua and they saw the manifestations of the Spirit and they came to the conclusion that there was nothing to prevent the Gentiles there from being immersed (baptized) after seeing them receive the Holy Spirit (an evidence of salvation and acceptance by God) just like they did. So, this chapter is about God breaking down the man-made divisions that prevented the Good News from going forth into the world. Peter’s interpretation of the vision (v 28, 34-35) says nothing about being allowed to eat unclean meats or anything about food. The vision is about accepting people no matter where they are from if they are believers.
A. The vision in Acts 10 has nothing to do with food or God changing the dietary restrictions found in His own Word. This vision has to do with people and the best way to teach that is to take the chapter verse by verse to show you what it is teaching. This is a perfect example of how the Scriptures have been perverted by false teachers and hopefully some of you will see the truth after this article. Cornelius is a Roman soldier who has come to believe in the God of Israel, but he has not become “Jewish” which was the process in the first century. Some believed that a person could not be saved, or have full “status” unless they submitted to circumcision, which was the same thing as saying “become Jewish”. Cornelius does believe in the Lord but has not come to this status as yet, and he has a vision to call for Peter in Joppa (v 1-8). As they were on their way the next day (v 9) Peter goes up to the roof for a nap and he has a vision. He saw heaven opened, which is a Hebrew idiom for a deeper insight, a revelation, and he sees a four-cornered sheet come down with all kinds of creatures in it. God tells him to “eat” which means to “accept, understand and make this a part of you” in symbolic language.
Peter says no, that he has not “eaten” these unclean things before. The voice in the vision says “what God has cleansed should not be considered unclean”. Let’s look at this a little closer. A four-cornered garment is something man-made and also alludes to the “four corners of the earth (Gentiles)”. There were man-made doctrines in the first century that said Jews were not to go into the house of or eat with a Gentile. This doctrine was primarily a Pharisee doctrine but widely accepted and included in what was called “The 18 Edicts” which most Christians have never heard about. The problem was God never said that. There is no law in the Scriptures that says a Jew and Gentile cannot associate. God was breaking down these man-made divisions in this vision. Peter didn’t understand the vision at first (v 17). He sees this vision 3 times and the Spirit of God tells Peter 3 men are looking for him and that he should go with them without any fear (v 18-23) because HE sent them. So, the next day he goes with them and enters the house of Cornelius (v 25) and the key to the whole vision is found in v 28. Peter says that they knew that it was unlawful (the 18 Edicts contained in the Oral Law) for a Jew to associate with a Non-Jew or to even visit him, but that God had shown him that he should not call ANY MAN UNCLEAN OR UNHOLY.
Peter has been given the meaning of the vision and he says it is about accepting (eat with) the Gentiles who believe, that they are not unclean in God’s eyes. Then in verse 34-35 he goes on to say “I most certainly understand now that God is no respecter of persons (show partiality to) but in every nation (four-cornered garment= four-corners of the earth) the man who fears him (animals in the sheet) and does what is right is welcome to Him”. And as Peter was speaking the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles gathered there with visible signs following to confirm the fact. This showed that a Gentile did not have to “become Jewish” to be saved which was the prevailing doctrine of the day. God showed them that these Gentiles received the same spiritual benefits as the Jews without having to ”convert” to the prevailing man-made doctrines of Judaism.
Then in verses 45-48 there were Jews there who believed in Yeshua and they saw the manifestations of the Spirit and they came to the conclusion that there was nothing to prevent the Gentiles there from being immersed (baptized) after seeing them receive the Holy Spirit (an evidence of salvation and acceptance by God) just like they did. So, this chapter is about God breaking down the man-made divisions that prevented the Good News from going forth into the world. Peter’s interpretation of the vision (v 28, 34-35) says nothing about being allowed to eat unclean meats or anything about food. The vision is about accepting people no matter where they are from if they are believers.
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Fullness of the Gentiles
Q. What does the term “fullness of the Gentiles” mean in Rom.11.12 and 25?
A. The answer to that begins in the Torah, specifically Gen. 49.19 where the term is used in a prophecy about Ephraim. Jacob says that Ephraim, who would later be known as the 10 northern tribes of Israel, would be scattered among the nations, or gentiles (Isa. 7.8, Amos 9.9, Jer 34.17,Hos 9.16-17, Ezek 37.21). The 10 northern tribes were “cut off” and divorced by God because of their unbelief. Later the 2 remaining tribes were cut off and divorced by God for the same reason (Mt.21 43) and scattered among the nations as well. So, what we have is all 12 tribes that have been driven into the nations due to unbelief. Rom 11 describes what happened and how the Lord will save Israel (all 12 tribes) and bring them back in faith. So, in Rom 11.25 he says that a hardening has happened to Israel (12 tribes) until the fullness of the gentiles (the tribes scattered among the gentiles, nations) comes in (by faith in Yeshua). Then in verse 26 it says that and thus (after this happens) all Israel (12 tribes) will be saved and he quotes Isa 59.20 (Rom 9.27, 11.5, Jer 31.1-7, 34.17, 31.10, Jer 50.17-20, Ezek 37.21). So, Paul is telling the gentile believers that what has happened to Israel was predicted. They have only “stumbled” but not fallen (11.11) and it is only temporary. God will again save a remnant of all the 12 tribes, put them together again (Ezek 37) and fulfill his promises. The term “fullness of the gentiles” does not mean when the all the gentiles who will believe comes in. It means those among Israel who have been scattered among the nations comes back to God of their fathers through Yeshua by faith.
Q. What exactly were the weak and beggarly elements talked about in Gal 4.9?
A. The context is man’s traditions, and this case it concerns the Jewish Oral traditions that the Galatians were struggling with. Jewish believers who had a strong attachment to these oral traditions were trying to impose on the Galatians some of these traditions, trying to convince them that their salvation was somehow deficient if they did not observe these things. The Torah commandments were never considered weak or worthless, but on the contrary were holy, righteous, good and perfect. It was the man-made dogmas that were a problem and still are today. Paul dealt with this in Col 2.8-23 also. The hand-written dogmas of man have no authority over a believer and we should not subject ourselves to them anymore. These dogmas are the customs and festivals of the nations and we are not to listen to the criticisms of the people around us when we don’t celebrate these things with them, but follow the customs and festivals found in the Scriptures (Col 2.16-17) which were pictures of the Messiah and the Redemption.
A. The answer to that begins in the Torah, specifically Gen. 49.19 where the term is used in a prophecy about Ephraim. Jacob says that Ephraim, who would later be known as the 10 northern tribes of Israel, would be scattered among the nations, or gentiles (Isa. 7.8, Amos 9.9, Jer 34.17,Hos 9.16-17, Ezek 37.21). The 10 northern tribes were “cut off” and divorced by God because of their unbelief. Later the 2 remaining tribes were cut off and divorced by God for the same reason (Mt.21 43) and scattered among the nations as well. So, what we have is all 12 tribes that have been driven into the nations due to unbelief. Rom 11 describes what happened and how the Lord will save Israel (all 12 tribes) and bring them back in faith. So, in Rom 11.25 he says that a hardening has happened to Israel (12 tribes) until the fullness of the gentiles (the tribes scattered among the gentiles, nations) comes in (by faith in Yeshua). Then in verse 26 it says that and thus (after this happens) all Israel (12 tribes) will be saved and he quotes Isa 59.20 (Rom 9.27, 11.5, Jer 31.1-7, 34.17, 31.10, Jer 50.17-20, Ezek 37.21). So, Paul is telling the gentile believers that what has happened to Israel was predicted. They have only “stumbled” but not fallen (11.11) and it is only temporary. God will again save a remnant of all the 12 tribes, put them together again (Ezek 37) and fulfill his promises. The term “fullness of the gentiles” does not mean when the all the gentiles who will believe comes in. It means those among Israel who have been scattered among the nations comes back to God of their fathers through Yeshua by faith.
Q. What exactly were the weak and beggarly elements talked about in Gal 4.9?
A. The context is man’s traditions, and this case it concerns the Jewish Oral traditions that the Galatians were struggling with. Jewish believers who had a strong attachment to these oral traditions were trying to impose on the Galatians some of these traditions, trying to convince them that their salvation was somehow deficient if they did not observe these things. The Torah commandments were never considered weak or worthless, but on the contrary were holy, righteous, good and perfect. It was the man-made dogmas that were a problem and still are today. Paul dealt with this in Col 2.8-23 also. The hand-written dogmas of man have no authority over a believer and we should not subject ourselves to them anymore. These dogmas are the customs and festivals of the nations and we are not to listen to the criticisms of the people around us when we don’t celebrate these things with them, but follow the customs and festivals found in the Scriptures (Col 2.16-17) which were pictures of the Messiah and the Redemption.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Gentiles vs. Messianic Believers
Q. I am confused about the use of “gentile” by some people. What do I call myself (not knowing if I’m Jewish or not) being a “messianic” believer?
A. The answer to your question is in your question, but let me give some information first. The term gentile has several meanings. The word itself comes from the Latin “gentilis” and it means “a people not Jewish.” The Hebrew term for this concept is “goy” meaning a stranger, non-Jew. Its plural form “goyim” means “nation” (Gen 12.2, 17.20) applying to Israel and it can be applied to non-Israelites (Deut. 15.6, 28.12, 36). Eventually the term can to be applied to unbelievers. Eph 2.11-22 is a good example of how one who was considered a gentile in times past can be spiritually brought near to God. In the 1st century these gentiles, which also meant “a pagan” had a specific term applied to them. They were no longer considered pagans, but God-fearers. This term is used in the book of Acts all over the place. The Greek term is “phoubemenoi” and you can see already the root of that word is where we get “phobia” from. They were also called “devout” which is the Greek word “sebemenoi” and that word is also used for these non-Jewish believers in Acts. These were specific synagogue terms used for these people and it was a compliment.
That probably doesn’t help with your confusion but it’s some back-round on this question, and it was something that has been dealt with for thousands of years. Now we come to some modern terms for a believer. The believers in Yeshua were called “mashiachim” in the 1st century and it is seen today as messianic. But, anyone who had an eschatological expectation of the Messiah was seen as “messianic” also. The term in Greek is where “Christian” comes from. In a Hebrew context it is “messianic, in Greek it is “Christian” and both mean the same thing. However, over the years there came to be a distinction between the two because of replacement theology. As a result, the term Christian today means something different than Messianic, and with two diverse theologies. So, with that in mind let’s get to the heart of your question. In my opinion, I don’t think the Lord really cares about what we call ourselves, what is important is what He calls us. He says we believe so “believer” is good. That’s what I go by a lot of times. I’m just a believer. Child of God or “son” in my case is a good one. Although I have Jewish descendants on both sides of the family, that doesn’t matter to the Lord.
Faith is what counts no matter what your pedigree is, so being Jewish doesn’t really matter except for some commandments that may apply. Some think that they have “Jewish blood” because Jews were scattered all over the world and there ”has to be some in there somewhere” they will say and they consider themselves “Jewish”. The problem with that is if there is no evidence for that in your family, then you can’t really back- up what you say and it can hurt your witness. Secondly, it’s like stealing the identity of someone then and you wouldn’t want that. Third, it doesn’t really matter as long as you come to the Lord in faith, believing in Yeshua and you keep His commandments found in the Torah. There is nothing wrong with someone who comes to faith from among the nations. That is what God wanted all along. There was no Jew or Gentile in the beginning. Man sinned and God redeemed him. God made promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and they represented all mankind in these promises.
Their descendents were to go into the nations and tell them they can have peace with God, and miserably failed but it didn’t stop the Lord. There has always been a faithful remnant that carried on the work and the world has heard the good news. When one from the nations comes in repentance to the Lord and in true faith they are grafted into the Olive Tree (Rom 9-11) along with those who come to faith from among Israel. The two groups become one in His Body, His Kahal, His Bride, His Name and there is one Shepherd and one King to lead them. In your question you called yourself a believer, so go with that and I’m sure the Lord has no problem with it either.
A. The answer to your question is in your question, but let me give some information first. The term gentile has several meanings. The word itself comes from the Latin “gentilis” and it means “a people not Jewish.” The Hebrew term for this concept is “goy” meaning a stranger, non-Jew. Its plural form “goyim” means “nation” (Gen 12.2, 17.20) applying to Israel and it can be applied to non-Israelites (Deut. 15.6, 28.12, 36). Eventually the term can to be applied to unbelievers. Eph 2.11-22 is a good example of how one who was considered a gentile in times past can be spiritually brought near to God. In the 1st century these gentiles, which also meant “a pagan” had a specific term applied to them. They were no longer considered pagans, but God-fearers. This term is used in the book of Acts all over the place. The Greek term is “phoubemenoi” and you can see already the root of that word is where we get “phobia” from. They were also called “devout” which is the Greek word “sebemenoi” and that word is also used for these non-Jewish believers in Acts. These were specific synagogue terms used for these people and it was a compliment.
That probably doesn’t help with your confusion but it’s some back-round on this question, and it was something that has been dealt with for thousands of years. Now we come to some modern terms for a believer. The believers in Yeshua were called “mashiachim” in the 1st century and it is seen today as messianic. But, anyone who had an eschatological expectation of the Messiah was seen as “messianic” also. The term in Greek is where “Christian” comes from. In a Hebrew context it is “messianic, in Greek it is “Christian” and both mean the same thing. However, over the years there came to be a distinction between the two because of replacement theology. As a result, the term Christian today means something different than Messianic, and with two diverse theologies. So, with that in mind let’s get to the heart of your question. In my opinion, I don’t think the Lord really cares about what we call ourselves, what is important is what He calls us. He says we believe so “believer” is good. That’s what I go by a lot of times. I’m just a believer. Child of God or “son” in my case is a good one. Although I have Jewish descendants on both sides of the family, that doesn’t matter to the Lord.
Faith is what counts no matter what your pedigree is, so being Jewish doesn’t really matter except for some commandments that may apply. Some think that they have “Jewish blood” because Jews were scattered all over the world and there ”has to be some in there somewhere” they will say and they consider themselves “Jewish”. The problem with that is if there is no evidence for that in your family, then you can’t really back- up what you say and it can hurt your witness. Secondly, it’s like stealing the identity of someone then and you wouldn’t want that. Third, it doesn’t really matter as long as you come to the Lord in faith, believing in Yeshua and you keep His commandments found in the Torah. There is nothing wrong with someone who comes to faith from among the nations. That is what God wanted all along. There was no Jew or Gentile in the beginning. Man sinned and God redeemed him. God made promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and they represented all mankind in these promises.
Their descendents were to go into the nations and tell them they can have peace with God, and miserably failed but it didn’t stop the Lord. There has always been a faithful remnant that carried on the work and the world has heard the good news. When one from the nations comes in repentance to the Lord and in true faith they are grafted into the Olive Tree (Rom 9-11) along with those who come to faith from among Israel. The two groups become one in His Body, His Kahal, His Bride, His Name and there is one Shepherd and one King to lead them. In your question you called yourself a believer, so go with that and I’m sure the Lord has no problem with it either.
Thursday, November 9, 2006
Issues Re: Catholic School Enrollment
Q. I have a Catholic friend who is twice divorced and has remarried. They have a son and when they tried to enroll him in a Catholic school, the priest said their son was illegitimate. Is that true?
A. I don’t have the whole picture so I’m going to answer the question based on the assumption that the first marriages had biblical reasons for the divorce. If that is true, then their son is not illegitimate biblically. Now, what the priest was referring to was the Catholic doctrine concerning divorce. They are very strict about it and it is almost never allowed as far as canon law. The Church of England was started because of this doctrine of divorce when King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and it was not granted. This goes back to the same old problem that has plagued mankind since creation, and that is making man-made laws the override what God has said. This is not a Catholic problem. The Pharisees of the First Century had a similar system. They believed there was two Torah’s, one written and one Oral. Yeshua took them to task on many occasions
about their traditions. The Orthodox Jews of today are modern day Pharisees and they believe that if a rabbi tells you your right hand is left and your left hand is right, you must believe them. They believe that the oral law takes precedence over the written when there is a conflict, thus invalidating the commandments of God. They teach that Moses received the written law and an oral law on Sinai, which isn’t true but they teach it. Now, we can shake our heads and say “How can they believe that” but Christianity does the same thing. The Catholic Church comes along and is basically formed 300 years after Yeshua. They changed many of God’s commandments including Saturday to Sunday as far as the Lord’s day, instituted non-biblical festivals and so on and man cannot invalidate God’s commandments. They believe in what is called “apostolic authority” which means that the leaders have authority from God to change these things because they are the spiritual descendants of the Apostles. They teach that Yeshua gave them direct authority to change things that are clearly written in the Scriptures and when you are ordained that authority passes to you and so on through the generations.
It’s the same doctrine the Pharisees believed and Judaism practices today. Protestants believe the same thing by the way so it’s not just Judaism and Catholics. Protestants say Sunday is the Lord’s day when there is no evidence for that in the Scripture and has never been proved. That doctrine comes solely from the Catholic Church. There are many more man-made laws that are passed on as biblical also. Now, with that back-round let’s get a little more specific about your question. Divorce under certain circumstances is allowed in the Scriptures (Deut. 24.1). It is not the ideal situation but we live in a fallen world and sometimes there is no choice (abandonment and so on). If your friend’s situation falls into a category like that then he is free to remarry and if they have any children they would not be considered illegitimate biblically. The priest made his remarks because of their Church doctrine on his divorce. He felt that if the divorce was not legal than any child born from a subsequent marriage would not be “legal” either. I hope this helps.
A. I don’t have the whole picture so I’m going to answer the question based on the assumption that the first marriages had biblical reasons for the divorce. If that is true, then their son is not illegitimate biblically. Now, what the priest was referring to was the Catholic doctrine concerning divorce. They are very strict about it and it is almost never allowed as far as canon law. The Church of England was started because of this doctrine of divorce when King Henry VIII wanted a divorce and it was not granted. This goes back to the same old problem that has plagued mankind since creation, and that is making man-made laws the override what God has said. This is not a Catholic problem. The Pharisees of the First Century had a similar system. They believed there was two Torah’s, one written and one Oral. Yeshua took them to task on many occasions
about their traditions. The Orthodox Jews of today are modern day Pharisees and they believe that if a rabbi tells you your right hand is left and your left hand is right, you must believe them. They believe that the oral law takes precedence over the written when there is a conflict, thus invalidating the commandments of God. They teach that Moses received the written law and an oral law on Sinai, which isn’t true but they teach it. Now, we can shake our heads and say “How can they believe that” but Christianity does the same thing. The Catholic Church comes along and is basically formed 300 years after Yeshua. They changed many of God’s commandments including Saturday to Sunday as far as the Lord’s day, instituted non-biblical festivals and so on and man cannot invalidate God’s commandments. They believe in what is called “apostolic authority” which means that the leaders have authority from God to change these things because they are the spiritual descendants of the Apostles. They teach that Yeshua gave them direct authority to change things that are clearly written in the Scriptures and when you are ordained that authority passes to you and so on through the generations.
It’s the same doctrine the Pharisees believed and Judaism practices today. Protestants believe the same thing by the way so it’s not just Judaism and Catholics. Protestants say Sunday is the Lord’s day when there is no evidence for that in the Scripture and has never been proved. That doctrine comes solely from the Catholic Church. There are many more man-made laws that are passed on as biblical also. Now, with that back-round let’s get a little more specific about your question. Divorce under certain circumstances is allowed in the Scriptures (Deut. 24.1). It is not the ideal situation but we live in a fallen world and sometimes there is no choice (abandonment and so on). If your friend’s situation falls into a category like that then he is free to remarry and if they have any children they would not be considered illegitimate biblically. The priest made his remarks because of their Church doctrine on his divorce. He felt that if the divorce was not legal than any child born from a subsequent marriage would not be “legal” either. I hope this helps.
Monday, November 6, 2006
Michael Disputes with the Devil Over Moses' Body
Q.” In Jude 8 it says that Michael the Archangel disputed with the devil about the body of Moses. What does that mean?”
A. The purpose of the book of Jude is to warn believers about false teachers. Jude is pronounced “Yehudah” in Hebrew and it is where we get the name “Jew “ and “Jewish” in English. The book contrasts what happens to those who disbelieve the Torah, the Scriptures that Jude had. He wants believers to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Tzaddikim= the righteous ones) which included Torah observance. Faith is action and action is dead without obedience to God’s commandments. You don’t gain righteousness by keeping commandments. You believe God and that belief is” acted out” by doing what God said to do showing confidence which is what faith means. The first century believers all observed the Torah so that was included in his idea of “the faith” once delivered.
It has always been a part of “The Faith.” He then goes on to describe what happened to the angels who rebelled against God and how they are in darkness (power of their sin) and they will be judged someday. Sodom and Gomorrah is used as an example for those who disobey the Lord. Starting in v 8 he says that with all that evidence available people still revile the Lord. How do you do that today? By saying you don’t have to obey because “it’s been done away with” and “Sabbath has been changed to Sunday” or “I can eat pork and lobster because the Lord has made all foods clean” and all the other false doctrine out there today. False doctrine today is no different than false doctrine in the first century and that’s why I am bringing out examples that apply to us today. Nobody sees their false doctrine as false. But, it is no different than in Jude’s time and that is his point. The false teachers in his day are no different than the ones in Sodom 2000 before him, and no different than what the angels did 2000 years before that.
They may have committed a different sin, but it doesn’t matter. They did not believe. People who keep Sunday, eat pork, celebrate Christmas and neglect the biblical festivals, say the Law has been done away with don’t believe the Lord and it’s just that simple. Even the Messiah they believe in isn’t the one in the Scriptures because they say He is in favor of all of the above. These things are mentioned in v 8 by dreaming. They defile the flesh and reject authority (God’s word) and angelic majesties (the things belonging to God) by rejecting what it has said about keeping the commandments. Now, with all that in mind we come to your verse. This story is not mentioned anywhere in scripture. It may have been around in some form in other 1st century writings and is loosely found in others, but the Law and the Prophets do not have it. To mention things not found in scripture is not unusual. Paul mentions Jannes and Jambres in 1 Tim 3.8 but they are not mentioned in Exodus or anywhere. So what is going on?
This is probably a figurative story to illustrate what he has been saying up to this point. God’s ways will always be opposed by false teachers. The Torah is also known as “Moses” in the New Testament especially. Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses to their destruction. Gen 3.15 says the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman will have a hatred for one another. Satan wants to sit on the “mount of the assembly” (Isa. 14.13) to be worshipped which is the whole point of most theology today that is not Torah based. In Hebrew “mount of the assembly” is “har’moghed” or “armageddon” in English and that is where the devil tries to gather those that follow him (Rev 16.16). So, Michael (who is like God) is symbolic of Yeshua, the seed of the woman. The “body of Moses” is the body of the Torah that the devil has his “disputes” over.
He contested it in the Garden of Eden and has ever since. Jude introduces this story to illustrate that false teacher’s will dispute over Moses, or in keeping of the Law of God, like they always have. They do it today by saying you are “free from the Law” and “the law has been done away with” and so on. There is nothing new under the sun and then the rest of the book goes on to describe these false teachers and why they do it. Anyway, the story in v 9 is used to show that false teachers (devil) will dispute with God (Michael) about keeping the commandments ( the body of Moses) and we should avoid this and to remember what happened in the past when others tried to do this and failed.
A. The purpose of the book of Jude is to warn believers about false teachers. Jude is pronounced “Yehudah” in Hebrew and it is where we get the name “Jew “ and “Jewish” in English. The book contrasts what happens to those who disbelieve the Torah, the Scriptures that Jude had. He wants believers to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Tzaddikim= the righteous ones) which included Torah observance. Faith is action and action is dead without obedience to God’s commandments. You don’t gain righteousness by keeping commandments. You believe God and that belief is” acted out” by doing what God said to do showing confidence which is what faith means. The first century believers all observed the Torah so that was included in his idea of “the faith” once delivered.
It has always been a part of “The Faith.” He then goes on to describe what happened to the angels who rebelled against God and how they are in darkness (power of their sin) and they will be judged someday. Sodom and Gomorrah is used as an example for those who disobey the Lord. Starting in v 8 he says that with all that evidence available people still revile the Lord. How do you do that today? By saying you don’t have to obey because “it’s been done away with” and “Sabbath has been changed to Sunday” or “I can eat pork and lobster because the Lord has made all foods clean” and all the other false doctrine out there today. False doctrine today is no different than false doctrine in the first century and that’s why I am bringing out examples that apply to us today. Nobody sees their false doctrine as false. But, it is no different than in Jude’s time and that is his point. The false teachers in his day are no different than the ones in Sodom 2000 before him, and no different than what the angels did 2000 years before that.
They may have committed a different sin, but it doesn’t matter. They did not believe. People who keep Sunday, eat pork, celebrate Christmas and neglect the biblical festivals, say the Law has been done away with don’t believe the Lord and it’s just that simple. Even the Messiah they believe in isn’t the one in the Scriptures because they say He is in favor of all of the above. These things are mentioned in v 8 by dreaming. They defile the flesh and reject authority (God’s word) and angelic majesties (the things belonging to God) by rejecting what it has said about keeping the commandments. Now, with all that in mind we come to your verse. This story is not mentioned anywhere in scripture. It may have been around in some form in other 1st century writings and is loosely found in others, but the Law and the Prophets do not have it. To mention things not found in scripture is not unusual. Paul mentions Jannes and Jambres in 1 Tim 3.8 but they are not mentioned in Exodus or anywhere. So what is going on?
This is probably a figurative story to illustrate what he has been saying up to this point. God’s ways will always be opposed by false teachers. The Torah is also known as “Moses” in the New Testament especially. Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses to their destruction. Gen 3.15 says the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman will have a hatred for one another. Satan wants to sit on the “mount of the assembly” (Isa. 14.13) to be worshipped which is the whole point of most theology today that is not Torah based. In Hebrew “mount of the assembly” is “har’moghed” or “armageddon” in English and that is where the devil tries to gather those that follow him (Rev 16.16). So, Michael (who is like God) is symbolic of Yeshua, the seed of the woman. The “body of Moses” is the body of the Torah that the devil has his “disputes” over.
He contested it in the Garden of Eden and has ever since. Jude introduces this story to illustrate that false teacher’s will dispute over Moses, or in keeping of the Law of God, like they always have. They do it today by saying you are “free from the Law” and “the law has been done away with” and so on. There is nothing new under the sun and then the rest of the book goes on to describe these false teachers and why they do it. Anyway, the story in v 9 is used to show that false teachers (devil) will dispute with God (Michael) about keeping the commandments ( the body of Moses) and we should avoid this and to remember what happened in the past when others tried to do this and failed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)