To the Jews First

[Ratsah]

To the Jews First  

[real eyes realize]

Some things I can't help but comment on, lol:

• The way he went about explaining the "divisions" of Paul's epistles wasn't very dispensationalist, ironically enough. Truthful, yes, but not dispensationalist. If the church age is one dispensation, then all nine gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:7-11) which were given during the church age, including tongues, can still manifest to people—assuming we are "the church age"/ under the same dispensation too. They can't have it both ways: yes, dispensations exist, but no, that doesn't apply throughout the whole dispensation. Then why bother calling it a dispensation? If the church age starts in Acts 2 and goes on all throught-out until Rev 20:3 (according to this), how can it be said that James is written for a different dispensation?
  
  But on a different note: there's no scriptural evidence that "the sign of speaking in tongues" is strictly for Jews; Paul outright says for "them that believe not" (1 Corinthians 14:22). The Israelites in general were a bunch of unbelievers despite witnessing miracles; it's not the fact that they're Jewish, it's the fact that they're unbelieving that they need signs. Not all Gentiles believe; they ask for signs too.
  
  
  
• 1 Timothy 4:3 is not talking about the Levitical law. The front of the book originates from YHWH, not from the devil/demons/deceiving spirits. That's what 1 Timothy 4 is referring to:
  
  
  Quote:

  1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)
  
  4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
  
  
  ...teachings that come from demons; teachings that did not derive from YHWH. So, the demonic doctrine must be something to the effect of, "abstain from meats which YHWH did intend for our consumption" aka someone trying to convince others to abstain from clean meats, maybe going as far as to convince the body that everyone should be a vegetarian/vegan. The whole thing about praying over the meat reminds me of 1 Corinthians 12:25-30, an issue of whether or not the meat was offered to an idol, not whether it's pork vs. chicken for example. On top of that, in 1 Timothy 4:3, the people following the doctrines of demons are forbidding marriage too (which the Levitical law does not forbid, a glaring indicator that Levitical laws are not being addressed at all in these verses); the most logical conclusion is that this teaching forces heterosexuals into celibacy too (I emphasize heterosexual since that's the only form of marriage that is legit in scripture; man + woman). Those are two things that YHWH never commanded ("celibacy" and "vegetarianism/veganism"), yet they are two things which the world in various other religions (i.e. Jainism, Buddhism, Catholic Church tradition [i.e. first friday of lent], etc...) emphasize as "holier". YHWH never said to abstain from beef or poultry. They are clean. He considers marriage to be just as holy as celibacy if the marriage bed is kept pure; likewise, a celibate person may not be pure if they're burning with lust/passions.
  
  
  
• Colossians 2:14 is not saying YHWH's law was nailed to the cross: the written record of our crimes/debts was nailed to the cross. The record of our debts speaks contrary to us; that needed to be destroyed, not the law which defines the sin in the first place. Otherwise, there would be no law to violate (since it was nailed away) and no one would need to come under covenant or believe in Jesus at all because sin (transgression of the law) wouldn't exist—again, because no law would exist had it been nailed to the cross. Unfortunately, most commentaries miss that point:
  
  - http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1750/Cheirographon.htm
  - http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/cheirographon.html
  
  
  because of that, the principalities and powers of v. 15 can't accuse us of anything (i.e. Satan). We don't have to go through the Great White Throne judgment because we don't have a criminal record. But for those who take part in the second resurrection, they still have theirs. The law still exists and they will be compared to it. Further, Colossians 2:22 clearly identifies that it's talking about traditions of men, not the commands we received via YHWH. The Torah = the commands of YHWH, not man.
  
  A comment about the holy days and feasts: no one can judge us for keeping his holy days because they speak of Christ; no one can judge us for not keeping them because Christ ultimately is more important and we already have him.
  
  
  
• I think he made a very good point about how the Jews in the Old Testament did not expect the cross, even though the prophets clearly told them. Not even the Jews of today (the non-messianic ones of course) seem to accept Isaiah 53:4-5. That's what Peter had to explain:
  
  
  Quote:

  Acts 10:43 (NIV)
  
  43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
  
  
  
  
  and Paul eventually:
  
  
  
  Quote:

  Acts 26:22-23 (NIV)
  
  22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”
  
  
  
• I love that he pointed out Philippians 4:7, knowing when your prayer has been answered: you receive peace. Answered prayer is not necessarily receiving what you asked for.
  
  
  

 

[Ratsah]

real eyes realize

Some things I can't help but comment on, lol:

• The way he went about explaining the "divisions" of Paul's epistles wasn't very dispensationalist, ironically enough. Truthful, yes, but not dispensationalist. If the church age is one dispensation, then all nine gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:7-11) which were given during the church age, including tongues, can still manifest to people—assuming we are "the church age"/ under the same dispensation too. They can't have it both ways: yes, dispensations exist, but no, that doesn't apply throughout the whole dispensation. Then why bother calling it a dispensation? If the church age starts in Acts 2 and goes on all throught-out until Rev 20:3 (according to this), how can it be said that James is written for a different dispensation?
  
  But on a different note: there's no scriptural evidence that "the sign of speaking in tongues" is strictly for Jews; Paul outright says for "them that believe not" (1 Corinthians 14:22). The Israelites in general were a bunch of unbelievers despite witnessing miracles; it's not the fact that they're Jewish, it's the fact that they're unbelieving that they need signs. Not all Gentiles believe; they ask for signs too.
  
  
  
• 1 Timothy 4:3 is not talking about the Levitical law. The front of the book originates from YHWH, not from the devil/demons/deceiving spirits. That's what 1 Timothy 4 is referring to:
  
  
  Quote:

  1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)
  
  4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
  
  
  ...teachings that come from demons; teachings that did not derive from YHWH. So, the demonic doctrine must be something to the effect of, "abstain from meats which YHWH did intend for our consumption" aka someone trying to convince others to abstain from clean meats, maybe going as far as to convince the body that everyone should be a vegetarian/vegan. The whole thing about praying over the meat reminds me of 1 Corinthians 12:25-30, an issue of whether or not the meat was offered to an idol, not whether it's pork vs. chicken for example. On top of that, in 1 Timothy 4:3, the people following the doctrines of demons are forbidding marriage too (which the Levitical law does not forbid, a glaring indicator that Levitical laws are not being addressed at all in these verses); the most logical conclusion is that this teaching forces heterosexuals into celibacy too (I emphasize heterosexual since that's the only form of marriage that is legit in scripture; man + woman). Those are two things that YHWH never commanded ("celibacy" and "vegetarianism/veganism"), yet they are two things which the world in various other religions (i.e. Jainism, Buddhism, Catholic Church tradition [i.e. first friday of lent], etc...) emphasize as "holier". YHWH never said to abstain from beef or poultry. They are clean. He considers marriage to be just as holy as celibacy if the marriage bed is kept pure; likewise, a celibate person may not be pure if they're burning with lust/passions.
  
  
  
• Colossians 2:14 is not saying YHWH's law was nailed to the cross: the written record of our crimes/debts was nailed to the cross. The record of our debts speaks contrary to us; that needed to be destroyed, not the law which defines the sin in the first place. Otherwise, there would be no law to violate (since it was nailed away) and no one would need to come under covenant or believe in Jesus at all because sin (transgression of the law) wouldn't exist—again, because no law would exist had it been nailed to the cross. Unfortunately, most commentaries miss that point:
  
  - http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1750/Cheirographon.htm
  - http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/cheirographon.html
  
  
  because of that, the principalities and powers of v. 15 can't accuse us of anything (i.e. Satan). We don't have to go through the Great White Throne judgment because we don't have a criminal record. But for those who take part in the second resurrection, they still have theirs. The law still exists and they will be compared to it. Further, Colossians 2:22 clearly identifies that it's talking about traditions of men, not the commands we received via YHWH. The Torah = the commands of YHWH, not man.
  
  A comment about the holy days and feasts: no one can judge us for keeping his holy days because they speak of Christ; no one can judge us for not keeping them because Christ ultimately is more important and we already have him.
  
  
  
• I think he made a very good point about how the Jews in the Old Testament did not expect the cross, even though the prophets clearly told them. Not even the Jews of today (the non-messianic ones of course) seem to accept Isaiah 53:4-5. That's what Peter had to explain:
  
  
  Quote:

  Acts 10:43 (NIV)
  
  43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
  
  
  
  
  and Paul eventually:
  
  
  
  Quote:

  Acts 26:22-23 (NIV)
  
  22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”
  
  
  
• I love that he pointed out Philippians 4:7, knowing when your prayer has been answered: you receive peace. Answered prayer is not necessarily receiving what you asked for.
  
  
  

Most of the divisions aren't all expressed in full detail, so you are going to get spaces here and there. In 1 Timothy 4:1 I think he is speaking on both spirits and doctrines(those pulling Christians back under the Law through Gnosticism) And I think he was just talking about "Pork" as an example, not a fact.