• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Challenge

I just want to throw this in here. What man has done to our food chain is unbelieveable, that is why we have mad cow disease. Grinding up the remains of sheep and feeding them to cows. Cows are not designed to eat meat. But they are fed blood meal, bone meal and the list goes on! Man has taken corn and beans put other genes in it to kill bugs. Chickens are fed the remains of other chickens, which are ground and mixed into the feed. Egg laying chickens are fed estrogen so they lay more eggs. I could go on forever. The point i'm trying to make is none of our food is clean.

Dairyfarmer
 
Dairyfarmer - it is truly disgusting concerning the issues that you put forth but it also shows mans arrogance as well. Someone at one point said here's a solution to our problem that should be harmless - or at least make me money without much harm. After the harm has happened they become "unforeseen" and that no one could have expected these outcomes. Is hay, grass and alfalfa so expensive that it's cheaper to feed them processed animal remains?
 
Mark C said:
Can you find any other example in Scripture where God commanded someone to clearly and specifically commit a sin - something God has clearly identified as sinful?
Answer - Genesis 22, just for the most obvious example. And no, don't try "eisegesis" here, either, or further deflection. I'm not accusing God, by any Name, of violating His own Word, as Written, or His Covenants -- as has been outlined.
I assume that must mean I'm accusing God of "violating His own Word" then. Of course, the reverse position would be true as well. I'm not accusing God of commanding sin or being an accomplice to sin. Your position is that murder was sin and yet God commanded it. Eating pig was sin and yet God commanded it. Let me ask you this. Who told Noah he was permitted to eat of any animals and why? Was this the same God as the one who gave the Torah to Moses? I simply cannot fathom how you can substantiate this position based on what Scripture says, unless you either do not believe all of God's Word or you believe it has been altered somehow. I'm just trying to figure out how you reconcile your views against what Scripture says.

In any event, we are still left with one of two possibilities. Either God DOES command some people to commit sin or God DOES NOT command some people to commit sin. If we have to believe that God commands sin in order to maintain a modern-day dietary Torah in light of His command to Peter, then you're free to see God that way. But we're still faced with the fact that God gave all the animals to Noah and his family as food. Even if God is occasionally conspiring to entice sin, these are conflicting guidelines coming from the same God. So far, we've seen at least three, if not four, varying rules regarding "food". How do you explain why unclean animals were given to Noah for food by God Himself?

Mark C said:
Avoiding pork and shellfish is, without question, simply HEALTHIER than eating them (from DNA and disease vectors, to harmful enzymes, to poisons absorbed in the flesh of animals designed, and never evidently modified in two millenia, to be scavengers). It's almost like our Designer was trying to tell us something. Do you deny that it's just possible (since He says so anyway) that He might just give us information for our good?
Avoiding meat is, without question, simply HEALTHIER than eating vegetables. It's almost like our Designer was trying to tell us something. Do you deny that it's just possible that He might just give us information for our good?

This line of reasoning speaks for itself. Since God only gave Adam plants to eat in the garden, maybe we should just avoid eating meat altogether and REALLY get healthy, since clearly the whole point of giving Israel dietary laws was to keep them healthy and strong. :roll:

Blessings,
David
 
I'll deal with this first :roll: --

Avoiding meat is, without question, simply HEALTHIER than eating vegetables. ...

Bad assumption, of course...

...This line of reasoning speaks for itself. Since God only gave Adam plants to eat in the garden, maybe we should just avoid eating meat altogether...

And even a worse conclusion - since there IS unquestionably Scriptural evidence that God DID change our bodies and our lifespans after the flood. Or - was He just --- nah, no time for sarcasm here.


In any event, we are still left with one of two possibilities. Either God DOES commands some people to commit sin or God DOES NOT command some people to commit sin. If we have to believe that God commands sin in order to maintain a modern-day dietary Torah in light of His command to Peter, then you're free to see God that way. But we're still faced with the fact that God gave all the animals to Noah and his family as food.

Bad assumptions, bad conclusions, David. There are more than those two possibilities.

Neither Peter nor Abraham were commanded to commit sin. I will simply suggest that God knows what He is doing, whether you are able to understand it or not. In NEITHER case was "sin" committed, and in BOTH cases His will was done, His purposes were served, and He was justified.

And, finally - and for the umpteenth time - the fact that I can eat something does not mean that it is "food", any more than the fact that something is called "food" means it is GOOD for me to eat. What sustains my life in an emergency, or does not kill me if it eat it and know better, does not mean either that I "should" eat anything I see, or that it is "sin".

Why does Paul distinguish between eating "milk" and "meat"? For the same reason, I argue, that he noted that "Moses is taught in the synagogues every Sabbath" -- because we are expected to "study, to show ourselves approved", and learn from Him. I suggest that the issue is first knowledge, and then discernment.
 
Mark,

Please forgive me, but everything in my spirit tells me that it's not a good idea to continue discussing this subject with you right now. Nothing would please me more than to be able to work out these passages together without strife, but I really feel I'm not accomplishing anything other than frustrating or annoying you, and that was the last thing I wanted to do. As I've said before, we can judge a tree by its fruit and fruit doesn't lie. For whatever reason, there seems to be a lot of anger and resistance to these passages (or at least, to my presentation of them). If you have spiritual discernment, I will leave it to you to decide whether what I'm saying rings true.

Torah observance has become such a sacred issue for you that I'm afraid that your mind is made up and nothing, not even all these Scriptures we've gone over, can convince you otherwise at this point. I've had this discussion with other Torah/Sabbath observers before, and I've seen where this inevitably leads (Paul is the antichrist, 9/10th of the NT cannot be trusted, etc). I certainly don't want to be the cause of leading you away from the truth. I'm beginning to understand how Paul must have felt at times, but I trust that God will bring it all around for good.

May God continue to guide and bless us both. Peace.

Love in Him,
David
 
I was going to suggest the same thing, David, based on the premise that I've had such discussions with other preterists before, and that a dispensationally-changed covenant had become such a sacred thing with you that none of the Scriptures we have discussed would convince you otherwise. (Paul is not the antichrist, BTW; he was a consummate Torah scholar. He's just difficult to understand, and his words are often "wrested", exactly like Peter said.) ;)

I will leave you with one serious thought, on that subject of Scriptures and "sacred issues", however. "Every moving thing that liveth" and "every plant bearing seed" as "meat" or as "food" for us must be subject to some interpretation. After all, some of them are clearly and unequivocally poisonous; meaning immediately and conclusively deadly, not merely disease-inducing. And Yeshua did promise that we would be able to eat poison, and not harmed, but that promise is not yet universal, even after 70 AD. :?

I will also leave it up to you, and to the guidance of the Ruach Hakodesh for both of us, to be like the Bereans, and see if these things be True.

May God continue to guide and bless us both. Peace.

Love in Him,

Mark
 
Mark C said:
based on the premise that I've had such discussions with other preterists before, and that a dispensationally-changed covenant had become such a sacred thing
Honestly, if we can’t even agree on something as important as whether the Old Mosaic Covenant ended yet, 2,000 years after Jerusalem burned to the ground, then there’s little point in worrying about whether Jesus did what He said He would do. Precept upon precept. Eschatology is never presented in Scripture as a salvation issue, whereas there are numerous warnings in the NT against getting back in bed with Hagar.

Mark C said:
He's just difficult to understand, and his words are often "wrested", exactly like Peter said.
Actually, I don’t think Paul is difficult to understand in the least, but I do agree that his words are often “wrested”.

Rom. 3:19: “And we know that whatever NOMOS says, it says to those who are in NOMOS…under judgment before Elohim”

1 Tim. 1:9: “NOMOS is not laid down for a righteous being, but for the lawless and unruly”

2 Cor. 3:6: “the letter kills but the Spirit gives life”

Gal. 5:2: “if you become circumcised, Messiah shall be of no use to you”

Gal. 5:3: “every man being circumcised…is a debtor to do the entire NOMOS

Gal. 5:4: “You who are declared right by NOMOS have severed yourselves from Messiah”

Heb. 7:18-19: “there is indeed a setting aside of the former command because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for NOMOS perfected naught”

Heb. 10:9: “He takes away the first to establish the second”

These passages are quite clear to me. How much “wresting” do these passages require to properly understand what Paul was saying? Seriously, which theological position requires "wresting" Paul's words? QED.

Mark C said:
"Every moving thing that liveth" and "every plant bearing seed" as "meat" or as "food" for us must be subject to some interpretation. After all, some of them are clearly and unequivocally poisonous; meaning immediately and conclusively deadly, not merely disease-inducing.
The obvious conclusion would be to not eat poisonous plants or animals. God gave us enough intelligence to determine for ourselves which things should and should not be eaten. Scripture never says eating unclean animals is unhealthy, any more than eating clean animals is healthy. As I’ve said before, I choose not to eat pork for health reasons, not because of anything in Mosaic law. I’ll take a healthy pig over a sick cow any day.

Love in Him,
David
 
I don't eat healthy pigs, sick cows, roadkill, or GMO'd soy - if I can at all avoid it.

But I did find your signature at least humorous, after this line:

The obvious conclusion would be to not eat poisonous plants or animals...

"Every moving creature that lives is FOOD for you. I have given you all, as I gave the green plants." (Gen. 9:3)

I read Paul the same way. In context, in other words, and knowing he doesn't contradict his Master. Galatians 5, for example, is not a blanket condemnation of circumcision, either. Were I to have a son, I know what I'd do for him. But no, I don't want to argue about it.



Honestly, if we can’t even agree on something as important as whether the Old Mosaic Covenant ended yet, 2,000 years after Jerusalem burned to the ground...

Obviously. 'Nuff said.

Blessings,

Mark
 
Mark C said:
I read Paul the same way. In context, in other words, and knowing he doesn't contradict his Master.
Perhaps you could give an example of how you understand the "context" of these passages WITHOUT "wresting" his words? I believe they mean exactly what they say and require no additional commentary. What do these passages mean to you (in context, of course)?

Blessings in Him,
David
 
djanakes said:
Exactly, so what's the connection between unclean foods and unclean gentiles? The Jews understood they alone were God's chosen people, while the common folk, the gentiles, were unclean, common, dogs. Scripture already establishes the definition of food as "Every moving creature that lives is food for you...But do not eat flesh with its life, its blood." Food is never defined as animal droppings, tin cans or anything else that one might decide to try to ingest. We know that Noah already understood the distinction between the clean and the unclean, yet also was given all for food. That much has been clearly established in Genesis.
You really seem to like that verse, and are willing to overlook all the others that don't favor your position.

Please answer these verses, which from my position create no conflict whatsoever. I have to twist nothing, all I have to do is read with understanding.
Isa 65:1 “I have let Myself be inquired of, not by those who asked; I was found, not by those who sought Me. I said, ‘Here I am, here I am,’ to a nation not calling on My Name.
Isa 65:2 “I have held out My hands all day long to a stubborn people, who walk in a way that is not good, after their own thoughts;
Isa 65:3 the people who provoke Me continually to My face, who slaughter in gardens, and burn incense on altars of brick;
Isa 65:4 who sit among the graves, and spend the night in secret places, who eat flesh of pigs, and the broth of unclean meat is in their pots,
Isa 65:5 who say, ‘Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am set-apart to you!’ These are smoke in My nostrils, a fire that burns all day.
Isa 65:6 “See, it is written before Me: I am not silent, but shall repay, and I shall repay into their bosom,
Isa 65:7 your crookednesses and the crookednesses of your fathers together,” said יהוה, “who burned incense on the mountains and reproached Me on the hills. And I shall measure their former work into their bosom
.”
Isa 65:8 Thus said יהוה, “As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one shall say, ‘Do not destroy it, for there is blessing in it,’ so I do for My servants’ sake, not to destroy them all. (right there is the concept of the tares growing with the wheat)
Isa 65:9 “And I shall bring forth a seed from Yaʽaqob, and from Yehudah an heir of My mountains. And My chosen ones shall inherit it, and My servants dwell there.
Isa 65:10 “And Sharon shall be a fold of flocks, and the Valley of Akor a place for herds to lie down, for My people who have sought Me.
Isa 65:11 “But you are those who forsake יהוה, who forget My set-apart mountain, who prepare a table for Gad, and who fill a drink offering for Meni.
Isa 65:12 “And I shall allot you to the sword, and let you all bow down to the slaughter, because I called and you did not answer, I spoke and you did not hear, and you did evil before My eyes and chose that in which I did not delight.”

Isa 66:16 “For by fire and by His sword יהוה shall judge all flesh, and the slain of יהוה shall be many –
Isa 66:17 those who set themselves apart and cleanse themselves at the gardens after ‘One’ in the midst, eating flesh of pigs1 and the abomination and the mouse, are snatched away, together,” declares יהוה. (hmm, rapture anyone?)
Isa 66:18 “And I, because of their works and their imaginations, am coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My esteem.
Isa 66:19 “And I shall set a sign among them, and shall send some of those who escape to the nations – Tarshish and Pul and Luḏ, who draw the bow, and Tubal and Yawan, the coastlands afar off who have not heard My report nor seen My esteem. And they shall declare My esteem among the gentiles. (hmm, interesting, Shaul was out of Tarshish, one of the places of exile)
Isa 66:20 “And they shall bring all your brothers as an offering to יהוה out of all the gentiles, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My set-apart mountain Yerushalayim,” declares יהוה, “as the children of Yisra’ĕl bring an offering in a clean vessel into the House of יהוה.
Isa 66:21 “And from them too I shall take for priests – for Lĕwites,” declares יהוה.
Isa 66:22 “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make stand before Me,” declares יהוה, “so your seed and your name shall stand.
Isa 66:23 “And it shall be that from New Moon to New Moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before Me,” declares יהוה.
Isa 66:24 “And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, and their fire not be quenched. And they shall be repulsive to all flesh!”


I don't know about you, but those verses there make me see that Yahweh really despised such things, and I see nothing that tells me in Scripture that Messiah was coming to get rid of all this. Find me just one place in Scripture that any righteous man consumed anything but of the clean animals, I haven't found one and I've looked. I fear and tremble for those who proclaim that such things are blessed for human consumption, especially in light of the fact that our Messiah whom we were told to listen to said that whoever breaks and teaches others to break his commands is least in the kingdom of heaven. I'm really not sure exactly what that means, but I certainly don't understand why so many fervently are attempting to be least....
 
The Book of Galatians is the best example of such, David (although Romans 13 has been pretty well "wrested" by the State Church to justify service to Caesar). The short answer is that I think most of today's pagan-influenced 'churches' have the message of that book literally backwards.

And, no - I can't do that claim justice in a single thread response, and know where it would lead. ;)



The most complete treatment of Galatians I have seen is Avi Ben Mordecai's book (and CD) --

Galatians:
A Torah-based Commentary in First-Century Hebraic Context


There are a number of Messianic ministries, however, who have done studies on the subject. One of those I would point you to is Monte Judah, at Lion and Lamb Ministries, LionLamb.net.


A couple of recent articles there at least bear on the topic: (Others are farther back in the archives)

http://lionlamb.net/v3/YavohHeisComing/2008/06 -- What is NEW about the New Covenant?

http://lionlamb.net/v3/YavohHeisComing/2008/03 -- Torah is for All People
 
^_^ said:
You really seem to like that verse, and are willing to overlook all the others that don't favor your position.
I've yet to see a verse that presents a different view in Scripture except within the Mosaic law. Since I already know the Mosaic law is not for a righteous man, it has no application for me, seeing as I am in Messiah and wear His righteousness. I obey the Law of Elohim, not the Law of Moses. If one cannot distinguish between the two laws or the two covenants, then none of this will make sense to them. They will never be able to understand or explain why God keeps changing his rules regarding what is acceptable to eat.

^_^ said:
I don't know about you, but those verses there make me see that Yahweh really despised such things, and I see nothing that tells me in Scripture that Messiah was coming to get rid of all this.
Perhaps he does despise us eating pork. If He does, I'd have expected to see something to that effect in the covenant He gave us (not the Mosaic covenant, mind you). At the very least, He seems to have changed His mind on what He finds objectionable through the ages. My rule of thumb is that anything that is uniquely Jewish or Mosaic in origin is not for us today, regardless of one's ethnic background. That covenant ended with that age. If gentiles during the time of Moses were never required to abstain from pork or shellfish or whatever else, I ask why not? Why does God judge the gentiles for immorality but never for dietary? I don't recall any prophets being sent anywhere to warn the gentiles to repent from their shellfish. There's no mention of the gentiles coming under judgment for their pork ribs. Dietary laws were given exclusively to Israel as a nation, but God's moral requirements were for all men, everywhere.

As a descendant of Noah and not a descendant of Jacob, I am most certainly an ethnic gentile. Therefore, the dietary laws applicable to Noah are the ones that apply to me. All plants, all creatures. No Pharisee can judge me for my freedom in Messiah regarding food or drink, so I use my own discretion as to what I will actually eat. John the Baptist ate locusts, but I draw the line on little crunchy insects (just trying to lighten the mood here -- everyone gets so serious when their theology hits a wall).

^_^ said:
Find me just one place in Scripture that any righteous man consumed anything but of the clean animals, I haven't found one and I've looked.
Uhhh...Noah? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? Joseph? How about any righteous man living prior to Sinai? You need it spelled out? God was actually speaking to Noah when He said "every moving creature that lives is food for you". Will we not believe it unless we see Noah's actual menu?

^_^ said:
I fear and tremble for those who proclaim that such things are blessed for human consumption, especially in light of the fact that our Messiah whom we were told to listen to said that whoever breaks and teaches others to break his commands is least in the kingdom of heaven. I'm really not sure exactly what that means, but I certainly don't understand why so many fervently are attempting to be least....
I'm fairly certain the passage doesn't say "Whoever breaks the least of MOSES' commandments", but rather, "the least of THESE commandments". I've looked all over chapter 5 and I'm not seeing Him say anything about what to eat or not eat. His audience would have already known they were not permitted to eat pork, seeing as He was speaking exclusively to Jews in Matthew 5. Context is everything.

Love in Him,
David
 
so you are in effect saying that the "Mosaic law" was from Moshe, not from Elohim.
Good one, but not scriptural.
 
^_^ said:
so you are in effect saying that the "Mosaic law" was from Moshe, not from Elohim.
Not at all. Elohim delivered those laws to Moses at Sinai, but they are not Elohim’s law, they are the laws given specifically and uniquely to Moses and the nation of Israel.

Gal 3:17-19: “Now this I say, NOMOS, that came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously confirmed by Elohim in Messiah, so as to do away with the promise. For if the inheritance is by NOMOS, it is no longer by promise, but Elohim gave it to Abraham through a promise. Why, then, NOMOS? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made. And it was ordained through messengers in the hand of a mediator.”

Did you catch that?

"NOMOS, that came four hundred and thirty years later...was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come"

NOMOS (law, Torah, instruction, take-your-pick) was given at Sinai, 430 years AFTER the promise was given to Abraham. 430 years after the promise was the Mosaic Covenant. It was added because of transgressions. It was to last until the Seed came whom the promise was made to. I refer to this added law as “Mosaic law” because it is uniquely and distinctly applicable to the nation of Israel, never to any gentiles before, during or after Israel. It began at the creation of national Israel and it ended at the destruction of national Israel. The administration of death in letters, engraved on stones, has ended. Believers today live under the covenant of Messiah.

Love in Him,
David
 
^_^ said:
ok, so if there was no law before, how then could have there been transgression?
There was law before Moses, just not Mosaic law (law codified for national Israel). The law of Elohim predates Sinai and applies equally to all men. Laws against murder, idolatry, blasphemy, stealing, adultery, sodomy, etc. were in force long before Moses. God's standards of behavior are external to any covenants.

Romans 1:18-21: "For the wrath of Elohim is revealed from heaven against all wickedness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known of Elohim is manifest among them, for Elohim has manifested it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, both His everlasting power and Mightiness, for them to be without excuse, because, although they knew Elohim, they did not esteem Him as Elohim, nor give thanks, but became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened."

Romans 1:28: "And even as they did not think it worthwhile to possess the knowledge of Elohim, Elohim gave them over to a worthless mind, to do what is improper"

Then he lists these improper things: whoring, wickedness, greed, evil, envy, murder, fighting, deceit, evil habits, whisperers, slanderers, haters of Elohim, insolent, proud, boasters, devisers of evil, disobedient to parents, without discernment, covenant breakers, unloving, unforgiving, ruthless.

Romans 2:14-15: "For when gentiles, who do not have the Torah, by nature do what is in the Torah, although not having the Torah, they are a Torah to themselves, who show the work of the Torah written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or even excusing"

The gentiles are not condemned for their violation of the terms of Sinai, because the Sinai legislation was never given to them. Instead, they are declared culpable for suppressing the truth that was in them. There were things they knew to be wrong independent of the formal legislation of Sinai. Elohim's morality is eternal and unchanging.

The law of Elohim is one of inner witness; conscience. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil has been passed down to all mankind. Cain knew that it was wrong to kill Abel. Ham knew that it was wrong to see his father uncovered. The men of Sodom knew it was wrong to use other men as though they were women. Abimelek knew it was wrong to take another man’s wife. Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic...we all have been given an intuitive sense of right and wrong, a sufficiently clear rule of life which all men, in varying degrees, have both obeyed and suppressed. It is true that some have seared their consciences to the point that they no longer feel twangs of guilt about their sin, but it is to this “internal morality” conscience that men were, and are, justly held accountable.

The purpose of the Old Covenant/Mosaic law was to objectify sin and demonstrate it as transgression. The Torah was to specify sin with clarity by making transgressions known. Elohim was demonstrating on a national level the fact of human sin, and therefore the law’s inability to justify. Given man’s failure, the Torah could only condemn.

Love in Him,
David
 
David, I am trying to avoid further comment on this one.

But I cannot keep silent when His Word is distorted:

Given man’s failure, the Torah could only condemn.

God says otherwise, through multiple witnesses (including "heaven and earth"), in His "teaching and understanding"!

Start with Deuteronomy 28:1-14. And please do not continue to ignore Deuteronomy 30.

His Word OVERFLOWS with blessings!

This evidently highlights why some of us do not believe "all is fulfilled", and there is no longer any need to study for ourselves. Speaking strictly for myself, while I pray that His Torah will be written on my heart, and on that of my house, and indeed all men - I can't delude myself that it is "finished", or that He isn't going to come back on some Yom Teruah soon.


Blessings,

Mark
 
And Doctor Ray --

Please don't feel that some criticism warrants turning away!

You asked a question, there has been some discussion, and your input is welcomed, and indeed coveted. Please take another pass here.

Blessings in Him,

Mark
 
Mark C said:
Given man’s failure, the Torah could only condemn.
God says otherwise, through multiple witnesses (including "heaven and earth"), in His "teaching and understanding"!
Haven't we already covered this? The key phrase there is "given man's failure". That is the starting assumption. It can be read as "The Torah could only condemn, given man's failure". Only Yahushua succeeded at obeying Torah. Everyone else failed miserably, some more than others.

James 2:10: "For whoever shall guard all the NOMOS, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all."

With Torah, perfection isn't suggested, perfection is MANDATORY. If you keep 99.9% of the law and fail in only 0.1%, you are guilty of 100% and you get the curses. If you keep 612 commands and miss just one, you still fail and get the curses. Scripture says again and again that the Torah could only bring death, not life. It made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:18). Sure, if someone was actually able to fully obey Torah, it would bring blessings. That somebody is Yahushua, which is why our blessings come through Him, not through Torah obedience. He accomplished what we could not. You appear to think that if you mean well and TRY to follow Torah to the best of your ability, you get spiritual blessing points. That isn't what the OT says and that's the opposite of what the NT says. Trying to obey Torah to the best of your ability brings you the curses!

Mark C said:
Start with Deuteronomy 28:1-14.
Deut. 28:1: "And it shall be, IF you diligently obey the voice of Yahweh your Elohim, to guard to do all His commands which I command you today..." (14 verses of blessings).

Deut. 28:15: "And it shall be, IF you do not obey the voice of Yahweh your Elohim, to guard to do all His commands and His laws which I command you today..." (54 verses of curses).

There's a lot more curses listed than blessings, almost as if He knew which they were going to choose. ;) Both are promises from Elohim and the conditional variable was Israel's obedience. The agreement was one of CONDITIONAL blessing and the obedience it required was absolute and allowed no exceptions. One must continue in obedience to ALL the Torah's demands, which is why Paul refers to the old covenant as "the letter that kills" and "the administration of death". It held out promises of blessings for those who were obedient, but for those who transgressed its demands, it held out only a curse.

Galatians 3:10: "For as many as are of works of Torah are under the CURSE, for it has been written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in ALL that has been written in the book of the Torah, to do them."

Notice Paul didn't say that they were under the BLESSING OR THE CURSE, rather, they are under the CURSE. Why would he automatically assume they would be under the curse? Was it impossible for anyone to succeed in receiving the blessing instead of the curse?

Nehemiah 10:29: "were joining with their brothers, their nobles, and were ENTERING INTO A CURSE AND INTO AN OATH to walk in the Torah of Elohim, which was given by Mosheh the servant of Elohim, and to guard and do all the commands of Yahweh our Master, and His right-rulings and His laws"

Yet again, Nehemiah confirms they were entering into a CURSE and not a blessing by taking the oath to obey Torah. It was clearly understood that the oath was a curse because no blessings could be had by anyone trying to obeying Torah. Was Nehemiah, like Paul, wrong that Torah observance brings the curses? The truth is that everyone who tries to obey Torah today is under the same curse. Like I said before, we can't hide fruit. If we insist on bringing down the curses on ourselves, we can't really complain when we end up living in a wreck. If one repeats the curse given in Deuteronomy 27:25, they can discover for themselves if they will receive the blessings or the curses. God's promises will be fulfilled either way.

Love in Him,
David

P.S. I'm only pointing this out because I care what happens to fellow believers in Messiah, and there is a lot of false teaching out there, trying to bind believers back to the Torah, back to slavery and away from freedom in Messiah. Pharisees love binding the consciences of others, but I must continue to take a stand against such false teachings, whatever form it takes.
 
Back
Top