Anyone familiar with the Hebrew or Messianic movement?

I can appreciate preachers that attempt to put the hebrew meaning or context back into the reading of scripture. I think there's a lot there that can help our understanding--be it hebrew wordpictures, jots and tittles, etc.

They claim when Jesus said "I came to fulfill the Law" that means to make it perfect or understandable. So people could keep it how it ought to be kept. Most Christians today would say that when Jesus said "fulfill" he meant lived and therefore completed it.

OK, my point in all this is to say, I feel that the issues are being confused a little. They say we need to keep the Law to the exclusion of many epistle that says "WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? WHY ARE YOU GOING BACK TO THE OLD COVENANT?"

Anyone have 2 cents to throw in here?

Hi NLONG,

Anyone have 2 cents to throw in here?

You can find a good intro into the subject in a thread I started in 2004 called [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1532&forum=40&post_id=&refresh=Go]THE JEWISH ROOTS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. [/url] I am fairly familiar with the Messianic Movement as I studied the subject at the Jewish Roots Institute of Kansas City.

They claim when Jesus said "I came to fulfill the Law" that means to make it perfect or understandable.

There are a variety of interpretetions of this by various Messianic Jews. Some will say He came to 'rightly interpret' the law, but reject what we would call [i]antinomianism[/i] as a consequence of the Church moving towards Rome (as it were).

So people could keep it how it ought to be kept.

It is my opinion that many I have heard have an incomplete understanding of the purpose of the Law and others within the Church error also in falling into antinomianism. We are called to be born again and walk in the Spirit. Having 'begun' in the Spirit we are to continue to walk in the Spirit. When believers walk in the Spirit they fulfill the law also. This does not mean they keep the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant Law. I'm mixing terms here and don't mean to, but the Old Covenant was never for a Gentile to begin with. The 'Law of Moses' was added because of transgressions. Folk were not walking in accordance with the light of conscience in that they had the Law of God written upon their hearts (Romans 2). The law had to be 'added' in order to shed light back upon man's deteriorating conscience (If I could say that).

The NEW Covenant is much better than the Old. We are under a New covenant with better promises, etc. This does not mean that the personality of God contained in the Old Covenant law is to be rejected. It is an accurate representation of the character of God that we are supposed to walk in. We cannot do this in the flesh by keeping carnal ordinances, etc. We have to walk in the Spirit and have no confidence in the flesh. As we do this rightly we live lives against which there is no law. We walk in the peson of Jesus Christ and He was the fulfillment of the law. The truth that was in Him becomes the truth that is in us if we are in Him (abiding in Him).

hope that helps a bit...

It's nothing more than what Paul was fighting against... the Judaisers. Paul spoke extensively about these people, and went to great lengths to expose their error and show that you are not saved by keeping the Law, or by circumcision... or any other work.

I think in a lot of ways they are going a different route to try to correct some of the issues that we often discuss here on SI, but they are often going about it in 'the flesh'. The flesh cannot make perfect what the Spirit has begun. It is impossible. The see a lot of lawlessness in the 'church' and as a result, I think, have taken this line. However, it is the wrong prescription for the problem.

Dont get snared by this group.

Yes, I am a fairly skeptical person by nature, but I appreciate the admonition! I have a good friend, who keeps the Sabbath. And he is poking around in this teaching. When asked why I don't keep it, I sighted Galations. He said that the teaching there is that the Galations don't go back to paganism. However, he does call them Judaisers! He wants them to go forward, and yes absolutely not backward to paganism, but specifically not to the side--Judaism.

Now that said, I don't feel like I have the best of all grasps on this subject. Though I do believe that to go to Christianized Judaism would be against the will of God due to the Pauline epistles.

RobertW,
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Now that said, I don't feel like I have the best of all grasps on this subject. Though I do believe that to go to Christianized Judaism would be against the will of God due to the Pauline epistles.

When Paul spoke of the Church in Ephesians he called it "One NEW Man." Not a modification of the old- but a NEW man.

As for the Sabbath I think we have liberty either way. If I want to observe Sabbath I can- no problem. I do not have the right to press others to do so.

One of the issues at hand is [i]expression[/i] of our faith. The Messianics want to express their faith within a Hebraic framework as it relates to the Old Testament revelation. Many see this as a better alternative than adopting modified pagan rituals (as they may call them) as a means of expressing the Christian faith. The Greek influence over the Church after 325 was enormous. It started sooner than that, but it essentially brought us the need for the Protestant Reformation. A popular saying is that the Church was not born in Athens- it was born in Jerusalem. I think that captures the issues pretty well.

However, he does call them Judaisers! He wants them to go forward, and yes absolutely not backward to paganism, but specifically not to the side--Judaism.

Whether it be carnal rituals or fleshly sins- flesh is flesh is flesh is flesh. Paul emphasized 'having begun in the Spirit.' This is the key. We are free to observe certain things if we with- but by no means to they contribute to our salvation. I think the emphasis has to be on the Spirit and not on the beggarly things that have no power to transform lives.

Just another thought on Sabbath. I generally point out that this is the one commandment that best illustrates man's rebellion and the presence of Original Sin. How could it be that man who is generally lazy by nature would rebel against a commandment to rest? This is rebellion for rebellion's sake.

Think about it. You are commanded not to work 7 days a week, but to rest one day. It is almost unconscionable to think a person would [i]want[/i] to work 7 days a week. Yet, folk tried to break this commandment and at one time it was the death penalty to break it. This is merely man's rebellion. It showed up as soon as Israel came out of Egypt. Sin had entered the human race and man was now postured to rebel against commands that even worked to his/her own benefit. Who would not want to rest 1 day and no one be able to tell you to work? Imagine a command at your job in which you are FORCED to take a day off WITH pay (that was Israel's experience in the Wilderness). Folk took the attitude and decided they'll take a day off when they feel like it and there is no one going to be telling them what to do! Amazing!

RobertW,

Perhaps I was too strong in my language. I really don't care if my friend keeps the Sabbath. According to Romans 14--Praise God! He is not overly dogmatic about this. However, much of the information he has given me is extremely dogmatic! This is not right. I am not dogmatic about no Sabbath whatsoever. And I don't keep it to the Lord--Praise God!

Where do you end up drawing the lines with Sabbath keeping? Just no work, no hard work, no payed work, no nothing at all (what the Pharisees taught). I realize that I am talking apples and oranges here--flesh against Spirit. But these are real hard questions for those that really really seek to please God with their lives have problems answering. I myself, I've answered it. Does Hebrews not teach that Christ is our rest from works? Perhaps our Sabbath rest.

By the way, I had real trouble with turning that link you gave me into a PDF...too long to read in one sitting. If someone could email it to me that would be excellent.

Hey really appreciate your 2 cents :) Happy Thanksgiving back to you.

I have zero against Jews. It's our foundation really. I just wonder why people want to continue in bondage be/c thats what Paul said it is.

Jesus and all aposltes--Jews. Praise God!

I don't think I'm using Judaizer as a swear word. Nor Christianized Jew. Please understand, I don't want to be overcritical or abusive here. I'll say the same thing with Christianized pagans--like most of America. They need to repent and really believe and bless God they will be saved.

And you are right, there are plenty of Christian Pharisees. I'm not trying to me over general. I'm just trying to find some sort of balance, if that's what is needed. Full throttle into Judaism seems to be a mistake, a regression. I'm not talking the cultre, I'm talking religion/ritual. Fine, your a jew, you know the culture--COOL! I'd love to attend a seder (spelling?). And God has blessed you with knowledge of the Jewish Messiah--the Savior of the world. Glory to GOD! I think were trying to say the same things.

I just want to be really careful that people aren't tricked into something the bible really cautions against and perhaps forbids--according to my understanding, which I've already stated isn't what I'd like it to be.

I myself, I've answered it. Does Hebrews not teach that Christ is our rest from works? Perhaps our Sabbath rest.

Yes. Christ is our rest, I think, but at issue is still the individual's weak conscience. If the person in question believes it a sin to not keep Sabbath then it will take time for them to be fully convinced in their own minds. They need to keep their conscience clear as they walk with the Lord. This, I think, is the issue of Romans 14.

What you [i]don't[/i] want happening is folk convincing your friend that they MUST keep certain ordinances that have been fulfilled in the New Covenant. A consistent and good study of the New Testament and an ongoing study of the scriptures will keep the conscience 'good' and will strengthen it (as it were) to understand there is liberty in Christ. More rules does not mean more spiritual.

God Bless,

-Robert

P.S. The thread may be too large to be made a PDF. You may have to skim through the relevant areas.

RobertW said:

I generally point out that this is the one commandment that best illustrates man's rebellion and the presence of Original Sin. How could it be that man who is generally lazy by nature would rebel against a commandment to rest? This is rebellion for rebellion's sake.

The Sabbath laws were designed, not just for physical rest, but to exercise and build faith – a tangible expression of the ultimate rest in God: salvation. Sabbath rest is the way we love God with all our hearts.

Legalism is the violation of the principle of the Sabbath law. Legalism is a symptom of man’s inability to believe God, to put their trust in him, as if the cross wasn’t good enough. In place, man tries, with endless, exhausting effort, to attain God’s forgiveness and mercy in their own efforts. Legalism is rebellion against the forth commandment. It is the inability to enter into God’s rest provided through the cross.

While the Pharisees and scribes were meticulous about Sabbath laws they were themselves unable to rest in God’s salvation. Neither were they able to trust in God’s temporal provision - as evidenced in their inability to keep the Sabbath Year, or the Year of Jubilee.

Much of our Sunday religious activity is actually an expression of rebellion against God’s Sabbath rest.

Do these thoughts tie in with the Messianic Movement?

Diane

I think that my friend keeps the Sabbath voluntarily and by Romans 14 I'm good with that. He will fellowship with me and I with him and there's unity in Christ. We challenge each other and are simply trying to work out our faith. At one time, my conscience was pricked when I did any work on Sunday, thinking Sunday was at least keeping one day separate. I live in a very conservative Amish/Mennonite community in Indiana. Now I see that that's just rediculous. The Sabbath is Saturday because that's what it's been, presumably since the beginning of the Law. God picked the day be/c he rested on the 7th, not the 8th or 1st. Now that said, I really don't care if Christians keep Sunday apart.

My big question is if the Sabbath is to be kept, should one not keep the entire thing, which includes no work, limited travel, feasts and etc? If the Law is to be lived then the rest seems mandatory to me. Maybe I'm short sighted, too black and white or something?

Diane's: Much of our Sunday religious activity is actually an expression of rebellion against God’s Sabbath rest.

I think there is a lot of truth to this also.

Legalism is a symptom of man’s inability to believe God, to put their trust in him, as if the cross wasn’t good enough. In place, man tries, with endless, exhausting effort, to attain God’s forgiveness and mercy in their own efforts. Legalism is rebellion against the forth commandment. It is the inability to enter into God’s rest provided through the cross.

Interesting also is that the conscience of those who 'work' believe that it is the way of salvation. So there needs to be some instruction taking place. This is one of the dangers of our approach to revival- is that in constantly challenging a person's salvation you almost force them in a sense into salvation by works. We run the risk of mistaking 'resting' in Christ with being 'asleep' in mediocrity. If folk are not 'troubled' all the time there must be something [i]wrong[/i] with them; when in fact maybe there is something [i]right[/i] with them.