Does Hebrews 8 really teach the Old Covenant has ended?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 сер 2024
- I’ve had several conversations recently with some of my readers and viewers who are grappling with what Hebrews 8:13 means. They’re convinced that we’re still under the Mosaic Covenant and trying to figure out what to do with this verse that (at least on the surface) seems to teach that the Mosaic Covenant has ended. Today we’re going to look at three of the most common arguments I hear from Torahism (aka Hebrew Roots Movement, Torah-observant Christians) against interpreting Hebrews 8 as teaching the Sinai Covenant has ended.
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13).
00:00 - Open
00:35 - Introduction: Behold Hebrews 8:13
01:23 - 1. Incognito Authorship
03:20 - 2. Back to the future tense
07:00 - 3. The Greek doesn't say "covenant"
14:57 - In summary
SUBSCRIBE TO MY CHANNEL:
ua-cam.com/users/RLSolberg?s...
FACEBOOK:
/ authorrlsolberg
MY WEBSITE:
www.RLSolberg.com
Brother, your gift as a teacher is unparalleled. For real.
could it be you totally missed the whole point..it has to do with the placement...Heb 8:10 For this is the COVENANT that I will make with the house of ISRAEL l after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my "LAWS "into their MIND, and write them on their HEARTS, and I will be their GOD, and they shall be my PEOPLE
Well Done. Even presented with this Truth rebuking their Lies, they will still defend their position, digging their heels in deeper. Biblical and Historical truths will not open their Hearts without the work of the Holy Spirit. Peace
Thanks, Sal.
Gentiles=Unsaved....... The Hebrew word תּוֹרָה "Torah" is defined in English as "direction", "instruction", and most commonly translated in the Bible as "Law".
• Many sects of Judaism teach that the Torah is only representative of the first 5 books of Moses. However, God's Laws are recorded and expounded upon throughout many books of scripture (including the New Testament).
• Some Laws are only for priests, others for kings, some are just for women, farmers, lepers, etc. But all the Laws of God are His own ways, behavior, and character. (Psa. 119:1-3) And all of His Laws are eternal (Psa. 119:160)
If you're a believer, you are keeping many Torah commandments every waking moment. 🙂
• Ecclesiastes 12:13 says "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."
Dear brother you are doing a great job in the vineyard of our Lord Jesus Christ which is very essential in these days as deception is very where.
I so much appreciate your videos! Very easy to follow and understand. TGBTG
could it be HE totally missed the whole point..it has to do with the placement...Heb 8:10 For this is the COVENANT that I will make with the house of ISRAEL l after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my "LAWS "into their MIND, and write them on their HEARTS, and I will be their GOD, and they shall be my PEOPLE
Hey man , I'm grateful for your desire to teach the truth biblically in obedience and fear and love to God , I hope I can learn much , thank you brother
Thanks, Johnny! Blessings, Rob
Very good content, I've watched other of your videos as well. I am thankful I found your channel. Thank you brother. God bless.
The detail you go into is so appreciated!!
Love your videos man. Very well articulated and easy to understand. Excellent job!
I appreciate that, Dan. Thank you!
I appreciate all that you are doing man. Keep it up.
Thanks, James!
Praise God for you. He has given you the spiritual gift of prophecy to express his word so truthfully and clear. Thankyou for fulfilling HIS call.
This video is much appreciated.
Good morning, Brand new subscriber here from a recommendation from a follower of E511 Ministries. I am truly humbled by your gentleness at casting down imaginations without attacking people. I pray the Lord will continue to change me in that way.
Thanks and welcome, Heather!
It is so true. The most amazing part is that it's genuine too. Everything this man speaks, is spoken with love.
This was teaching at its finest. Thank you!
Makes 100% sense brother. God bless
Bless you, Wayne. Thanks!
Very good. Thank you
This is very good explanation, I really thankful to speaker.
Thank you, pastor!
Blessings, Rob
Man I just found your channel and its is great u are a pleasure to listen too keep it coming god bless one question I have is those the new covanent mean get ride of all the power house s church's ect and just follow jesus I'm new to following jesus out of looking everywhere else for god as I didn't understand the teaching s you my friend help me alot thank you for that sir 🙏
Thank you, Leonard! It's amazing how God works in our lives even when we don't see what He is doing.
As far as churches, some are fantastic and others are not so good. The idea of going to church and being a member of a church community is very biblical. But I think it's important that it's a church that preaches the Gospel of Christ and confesses the Bible as our authority and teaches from it. Some (not all) of the big "powerhouse churches" start to preach less from the Bible and their sermons become more like self-help talks. And sadly as we have seen, sometimes their pastors become enticed with power, fame, and fortune and fall from grace. So that's something to be aware of.
Blessings,
Rob
As a fundamental Christian (i.e. not a Catholic) I have been taught and understand that Christianity has its roots in Jewish history and tradition, and that Jesus was born a Jew, lived his life as a Jew, and was crucified as a Jew. So when Jesus says "Follow me" that sounds, to my ears, a whole lot like a Jewish rabbi beseeching would-be disciples to follow his rabbinic teaching and his school of Judaism.
But the Jesus school of Judaism is a perfection of the Law. Jesus came not to abolish the Law and the prophets, but to complete their purpose and launch a new covenant--one based in faith rather than the letter of any law. I also wonder how many Jewish people who demand adherence to the Law actually keep the Law themselves. I'd say none, as I haven't seen any animal sacrifices lately.
Rob, we meet again. I thoroughly enjoyed your presentation here and was particularly happy to see that you included discussion of the missing word, covenant, from the Greek text in your third argument of Hebrew Roots critique. Most expositors totally gloss over this very important point and I would like to concentrate on this aspect of your discussion since I agree with you that the other two explanations do not adequately explain the passage in question (Hebrews 8). But to do justice to the subject, I would like to get a running start with Hebrews 7, then move to Hebrews 8, and finally finish in Hebrews 9…not to worry, I don’t plan to parse every verse, so, hopefully, this shouldn’t be as long as some of my other responses.
In Hebrews 7, we read:
12 For the priesthood being CHANGED, there is made of necessity a CHANGE also of the law. (Heb 7:12)
Both of these terms, CHANGED (G3346, metatithemi) / CHANGE (G3331, metathesis), are TRANSPOSITIONAL, meaning the nature of the subject is not changed, only where it is placed. The priesthood was moved from earth to heaven and the law was moved from stone to our hearts. This is foreshadowing for Hebrews 8:8-10 and 9:10, coming up.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Heb 8:6)
So, what is required to make this “new” covenant better? Well, according to Heb 7:12, 8:10, and Jer 31:33, it’s the fact that God writes His Commandments (Torah) on our hearts…that is, His Commandments are “transposed” from stone to our hearts when we believe and trust in Messiah Yeshua so that we have a desire to pursue them. Also, according to Heb 9:10 and 11, we now have a High Priest that is NOT subject to sin as were the men who served previously.
7 For if that first (PRIESTHOOD) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with THEM, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (Heb 8:7,8)
If we assume, as most translators do, that the understood word is COVENANT, then it seems as though God is at fault since it’s His Covenant. We know that the Covenant is NOT at fault since God is perfect and everything He sets His Hand to displays that perfection as well. (Also, He states that: “You can do this”…”it’s not too hard for you”…in Dt 30:10-14.) This is further underscored in the very next verse where the fault is placed where it belongs…with THEM…the people (PRIESTHOOD) and not the COVENANT. So, I still see PRIESTHOOD as the subject here.
And then there’s the issue of “new” (Greek, neos) versus “renew” (Greek, kainos). If the writers / translators intended a brand spanking, never before seen, new covenant, why would they choose the Greek, kainos, instead of neos? If they had used neos, there would have been no uncertainty as to the intent. The fact that kainos is used about 90% of the time in relationship to covenant / testament indicates to me that a different understanding is to be gleaned from these passages…that is refreshed / renewed / restored. Then too, this lines up with the Hebrew “chadashah” in Jer 31:31 and Messiah’s words, “not one jot or tittle”, in Mt 5:18.
According to Scripture, who specifically is the recipient of the “New” Covenant?...ISRAEL and JUDAH! And what does the First Covenant say about the Law? You (ISRAEL and JUDAH) will do these things FOREVER, THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS, IN PERPETUITY, as an EVERLASTING observance. So, a RENEWED COVENANT also preserves the FOREVER, THROUGHOUT YOUR GENERATIONS, IN PERPETUITY, and EVERLASTING terminology. That the Torah is still with us is further underscored by Ez 43 - 48 where Messiah Yeshua will be overseeing conduct of the same at His second coming during the Millennial Reign…including animal sacrifices.
In Jeremiah 31, we read:
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which MY COVENANT THEY BRAKE, although I WAS AN HUSBAND UNTO THEM, saith the Lord:
So, the Torah was the katubah or marriage contract between corporate Israel and God…but Israel broke the covenant and God divorced them (Jer 3:8, Is 50:1), putting an end to the Old Covenant between God and corporate Israel. Since the Old Covenant had long since been dissolved by the time of Messiah's first advent, the only thing left is the PRIESTHOOD “which decayeth and waxeth old and is ready to vanish away”:
13 In that he saith, A new (PRIESTHOOD), he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13)
Most Bible scholars place the writing of Hebrews just prior to 70AD and so, the “writing on the wall” was probably very apparent to the author of Hebrews (Paul?).
The PRIESTHOOD subject is continued in chapter nine where, once again, we encounter the same construct:
1 Then verily the first (PRIESTHOOD) had also ORDINANCES OF DIVINE SERVICE, and a WORLDLY SANCTUARY.
2 For there was a TABERNACLE made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the SANCTURARY.
3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;…ETC.
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on THEM (PRIESTHOOD) until the time of REFORMATION. (Heb 9:1-3,10)
The very next verse describes the REFORMATION / TRANSLATION:
11 But CHRIST BEING COME AN HIGH PRIEST of good things to come, by a GREATER and MORE PERFECT TABERNACLE, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; (Heb 9:11)
…still the PRIESTHOOD subject. The earthly priesthood ended in 70AD and the office of the High Priest was TRANSLATED to heaven.
Shalom
Thanks, Henry! You make an excellent case for the subject of Heb 8:13 being the priesthood, not the covenant. I respectfully disagree with your conclusion, however. For one thing, we don't have to guess as to the subject of the statement in vv. 6-7 since the Greek word for "covenant" is explicitly used:
"But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant (διαθήκηhe diatheke) he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first (covenant) had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." (Heb 8:6-7)
This passage tells us that the first covenant had faults and the new covenant is better. Because it is enacted on better promises, for one thing. (I agree with you that Yahweh is perfect and He was not at fault for the breaking of the first covenant. As you pointed out, it was Israel who broke it, not Yahweh.) So the explicit subject of Hebrews 8:6-12 is the covenants, and that subject continues implicitly into 8:13 and then chapter 9.
I'm curious. I did a little research and could not find a single translation of Hebrews 8:13 in English, Spanish, French, or German, from any era, in which the subject was rendered "priesthood" (sacerdocio, prêtrise, Priestertum). Every translation I found either says "covenant," or leaves the subject unmentioned. What is your theory on why none of these hundreds of translations agrees with your interpretation? I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, just that your interpretation is not supported by any of these trained, professional translators.
Blessings,
Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots
Thank you Rob for your critique. Even though we don’t agree on all aspects of Scriptural interpretation doesn’t mean we can’t be friends.
Just because COVENANT is mentioned in verse 6 doesn’t necessarily change the focus of the passage since the COVENANT and the PRIESTHOOD were inextricably intertwined…the COVENANT defining the functioning of the PRIESTHOOD. So, looking beyond the language and translation, when God divorced Israel and dissolved the COVENANT, there was no further foundation for the continuance of the PRIESTHOOD and it “waxed old and faded away.”
Your words: “This passage tells us that the first covenant had faults…”
The first COVENANT wasn’t at fault…it was a perfectly “legal” agreement between two parties, God and Israel. The fault lay with the people…actually the PRIESTHOOD, since they were responsible to maintain “right relationship” between Israel and God.
With regard to other translations of Hebrews 8:13 - “A stream cannot rise above its source.” All these translations probably stem from Eramus’ Textus Receptus and we know that he adjusted the text to align with readings in the Latin Vulgate and quotes of the church fathers in many places and even had to fill in for missing verses in the six or so manuscripts he was working from. Also, where passages were duplicated in the manuscripts, he had to choose the “best”. Did his Catholic bias cause him to lean in that direction? He obviously had issues with the manuscripts he was dealing with:
"But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep.“ - Desiderius Erasmus
I think biases are almost impossible to avoid when translating. If you are absolutely, 100% sure of some Biblical position, your translation can’t help but reflect that bias. This may well be what is going on with Heb 8:13.
Shalom
@@henryhodgens4312 Thanks, Henry! Even if we allow for the Textus Receptus and biases being impossible to avoid 100%, it doesn't explain why your interpretation is not supported by any of the 100+ English, Spanish, French, or German translations I checked.
These translations span every era from the 1500s to today and include multiple denominations, text types, presuppositions, and biases. And more importantly, they are not all derived from the same source. Many use the Textus Receptus, many others are based on the Critical Text or the Majority Text, and many use some combination of all three. Yet not one translation I looked at renders the subject of Hebrews 8:13 "priesthood."
Again, this does not technically mean you are wrong. But I hope you would acknowledge the stark contrast between your personal interpretation and the consensus of professional translators and scholars over the last five centuries. The position you are defending is certainly an outlier. And as you said, "biases are almost impossible to avoid when translating"
Blessings,
Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots
Rob,
Not to be insensitive or pejorative, but the logic that the annulment of the marriage contract between God and Israel abrogated the First Covenant long before Messiah’s first advent still stands and, seemingly, other “experts” cannot refute this. Since this is apparently a true conclusion, how can COVENANT be the subject of Hebrews 8:13? So yes, I readily admit my understanding lies far afield of normative Christianity, but not without reason…as above.
Many of the biases I am referring to actually predate compilation of the NT and various manuscripts and are therefore thoroughly ingrained in Christian theology…perhaps best exemplified by the dissention between the eastern and western “tradition” of the second century as witnessed by Polycarp, disciple of the apostle John, and a Sabbatarian who held to then “orthodox” traditions including Pesach (versus Easter), etc.
Then too, the truth isn’t dependent on just the history I’m referring to. It is actually very evident in the NT text when we apply a Hebraic mindset. One reason we refer to ourselves as Hebrew Roots is due to our belief that the Greek NT was derived from a Hebrew / Aramaic substrate. So, to properly understand the NT requires one to examine the Greek in that light. Do you agree with this assessment?
Shalom
@@henryhodgens4312 Thanks, Henry. I respect your honest self-assessment. It says a lot about your character and your willingness to pursue the truth, wherever it takes you. That's a journey I aspire to, as well.
When you say "the logic that the annulment of the marriage contract between God and Israel abrogated the First Covenant long before Messiah’s first advent still stands," I am not quite sure I am following you. The fact that the Sinai Covenant has become obsolete because of Israel's unfaithfulness is not only found in Heb 8 but also Jer 31:31-34.
You mentioned, "Many of the biases I am referring to actually predate the compilation of the NT and various manuscripts."
This is an interesting statement. How did you come to this conclusion? I ask because, respectfully, just like the translation of Heb 8:13, this statement seems to suggest that you have come across some sort of hidden or lost knowledge that all the translators, scholars, and theologians over the centuries did not account for.
You also asked if I agree that to properly understand the NT we need to examine the Greek with a Hebraic mindset. I do agree that a proper understanding of the NT requires us to step into the worldview and mindset of the Jewish authors and the audiences they were writing to. As Heiser says, "The proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers-the context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien or at least secondary.”
Blessings,
Rob
Excellent 👍👍
Thank you 👍
How did I become addicted to this channel? IMO this is the most urgent issue confronting the Christian Church. If we don't get Law versus Gospel right, does it really matter if the rapture happens pre, mid or post Tribulation? Are we double yoked to OT & NT?? Or only to what Jesus said? His yoke is easy & His burden is light. For all who are burdened & heavy laden, He offered us REST (Sabbath) from our legalistic works to please God & be saved. Being doubled yoked is the opposite of entering into God's REST.
Good sir. It actually makes perfect sense if we will just read what is said. The author of Hebrews quotes what God said about 600 years earlier. God declared the old done 600 years before Hebrews was written when he announced a new covenant to come. That which was old (600 years earlier) was soon passing away 600 years earlier. Jeremiah was written right before the Babylonian captivity. The old covenant ended then and those who came out of captivity were to look for a new covenant to be brought to them by/through the Messiah. Hence, no ark of the covenant in the second temple, only the rock the ark used to sit on which was referred to in many different ways but one was "the cornerstone of creation/earth". This was why it ticked of the pharasees so much when Jesus referred to himself as, the chief cornerstone. He was declaring himself as the Messiah by refering to himself as the stone, over which the blood in the holy of holies was sprinkled. The law was not and is not the covenant. The law separated israel from other nations. The covenant was obey it and God would bless disobey and God would curse. They disobeyed, God held true and cursed them. The covenant was broken by Israel hence captivity and the new covenant promised. My2Cents
Exactly the law was not the covenant
Im a Torah keeper and I will affirm its the "covenant" but there needs to be explanation as to why and how that is not antithetical to my position as a torah keeper. :) Would love to talk to you about it.
Hey, BA! Good to hear from you. I'm not quite following your question. Are you saying that the fact that the Sinai Covenant has ended must conform to your position as a Torah-keeper?
Paul referred to the "two covenants" in Galatians 4:24-31 and instructed the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage".
Paul also contrasts the two covenants in 2 Cor. 3:6-8.
Hello Rob,
Romans 3:31. In your opinion what law do you think the author is referring?
Thank you
Hi Kevin! I've not yet dug deeply enough into this passage to feel comfortable commenting on it. But in their commentary on Romans, Boa & Kruidenier write on 3:31:
"Boasting is excluded by the law itself. While this may sound contradictory on the surface, here is the point: it is the law that shows people that they have failed in all points to be righteous, forcing them to the conclusion that they must accept righteousness as a free gift of God. The law says, “You have nothing to boast in and I can prove it!”-and then proceeds to list all the places in which we have failed morally. Therefore, the free “gift of God” (Rom. 6:23) is the only way that we can attain salvation, and it took the law to reveal it. Therefore, the law serves the gospel by removing all boasting about how one might be saved. As a result, Paul says, we uphold the law."
@@TheBiblicalRoots
Hello Rob,
Thanks for the feedback, I hope to hear your opinion soon.
It’s sad, Christians seems forget this verse in the Bible or refuse to address it in context.
Hi, Kevin. I just posted a new article on my blog which may (or may not) help to shine some light on Romans 3:31 for you. rlsolberg.com/we-uphold-the-law/
@@TheBiblicalRoots thanks Rob
I will read it today
QUESTION???
Matthew 5:17 says "...until heaven and earth pass away...".
Is this an idiom? If so, what does it mean in this context?
Heaven and earth is the hierarchy and order that governed the people of Israel heaven being the old covenant the law and all the elements and administers therefore earth being the people all of which passed away.
Do you agree that these covenants are wedding covenants or katubeh?
Rob at the end you shared that the word of God is not ended, meaning the word can still be used for truth and lessons so what is ended? How do people read this to me we need to keep/observe/ acknowledge shabbat and festivals rather than learn spiritual truths? They use matthew 5:17 to imply torah keeping is mandatory.
Hi, BCS! You bring up one of the biggest difficulties in the discussion between Torah-observant Christians and mainstream Christianity. Our use of terminology can vary quite a bit so we sometimes end up talking past each other. For example, are the _Torah_ and the _Law of Moses_ two different things? Is the _Law of Moses_ different than the _Mosaic Covenant?_ And is the _Law of God_ different than the _Law of Moses? The answer you'll get to these questions depends on who you ask. In my opinion, the answer to each question is "yes." And there is some added confusion in the English translations, where the word _torah_ is most often translated into English as _law._ However, that Hebrew word sometimes just means teaching or instruction, not specifically law or the Law of Moses.
So I believe the Sinai Covenant-the contract or agreement between God and Israel made at Mount Sinai through Moses-has ended. But it is still recorded in the Bible and, as a historical event or process, it has much to reveal to us about how God operates and what is important to Him. And the Law of Moses-the set of commandments and regulations that God established through Moses which served as the terms of the Sinai Covenant-has either changed or ended, depending on how you look at it. So, while the legal Shabbat requirements, kosher food restrictions, Levitical priesthood, temple sacrifices, etc. are no longer required of God's people, the principles behind those commandments remain true. And the Law of Moses, while not an active, binding law today, is still recorded in the Bible and as a historical truth can teach us a lot about the heart of God.
Blessings, Rob
If Torah keeping us mandatory the why is the Ethiopian Eunuch reading from Isaiah about the messiah and Phillip teaching him when the Torah bans eunuchs from joining the congregation Deu 23 1
@@JGez83 Will you please clarify? There seems to be missing thoughts. I want to catch them all to see where you are going.
@@JGez83 eunuchs are not allowed to go in but can stay listen from outside...hahaha
@@JGez83 Isaiah 56
All the verses you use and the arguments you have are so convincing
And I agree its clear that in Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31 it was prophesied that God would bring a new covenant
But at the same time Hebrew Roots advocates counter with arguments that are just as convincing and I cant find a way around them or an alternative explanation that resonates with the rest of scripture
The ones stumping me most right now are Zechariah 14:16 (Torah observant advocates claim this chapter is 100% a prophecy of the 2nd coming of Messiah and that the entire world will be required and expected to make a pilgrimage once a year to Jerusalem to worship Hamashiach and celebrate feast of tabernacles and if they don't they're cursed and God won't send rain to their land and they'll starve)
And another one is one that I know you're working on right now, but I've tried figuring it out myself and it seems like there's so many different possible interpretations and commentaries on it... Matthew 5:17-20..
At first I thought this passage is Jesus actually agreeing with us that both those who keep the law and those who dont will be in heaven
"They will be called great in the kingdom of heaven"
"They will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"
It seems like at first that Jesus doesn't see keeping the law as a salivational issue but rather an issue of status and esteem
But then there's people who interpret this as meaning thats just what people in the kingdom will regard everyone as whether they're in the kingdom or not... So for example, they'd call the pharisees who blasphemed the Holy Spirit the least and Hitler the least but they don't have to be in the kingdom to be called the least, its just what they're status is for those who are saved and in the kingdom...
And this interpretation seems to make more sense because in verse 20 Jesus says that nobody will enter heaven unless their righteousness exceeds even the pharisees and scribes... And it seems as if in verse 19 he was actually alluding to the pharisees and scribes when he said "those who do not keep even the least of the commandments and teach others the same will be called least by those in heaven"
Hence why in later verses in Matthew Jesus condemns them for making the commandments of God void by their traditions and how they're whitewashed tombs who regard the doing of the law as great but thought crimes/sins as the least commandments or insignificant commandments if even commandments at all...
Which might be exactly why Jesus went on after Matthew 5:20 to then explain multiple times "You have heard it said do not murder but I say.. do not even hate your brother in your heart"
Then an adultery one and others
Which was interesting cause at first I was thinking "but wait whys Jesus only covering commandments from the 10 commandments" but then you see one about Oaths and about love your neighbor and your enemies which are mosaic law commandments rather than from the 10 commandments...
So at first I started to think when Jesus says "those who keep the law and teach it" in Matthew 5:17-19... that this "law" hes referring to is the 10 commandments but, how? if just a little bit later he's mentioning laws from the Sinai covenant such as an eye for an eye and oaths etc.?
So he mustve been referring to the entire law and prophets after all? But that makes it extremely confusing because Paul taught a totally different message...
Which then makes me question if Paul was a sheep in wolfs clothing and a false prophet like some hebrew roots people do... Some even claim all Pauline writings are either forgeries or Paul was hellbent on the idea of hijacking Christianity for whatever reason...
Maybe you could cover all this in future videos cause I'd definitely love to see them and nobody's covering Matthew 5:17-20 except for Hebrew Roots people who claim that Matthew 7:21 is absolute proof that Jesus will only save those who are lawful rather than lawless
It seems like both sides are so convincing and have their own supporting scriptures with no way to reconcile them..
I hear you, MP! Here's a framework through which we can look at all these verses that might help bring some clarity. Let’s use the phrase “Law of God” (or “God’s Law”) to refer to the unchanging, universal principles and moral values that God established for mankind from the very beginning. There is only one Law of God, and it is grounded in Yahweh’s very nature. It reflects His Truth, His heart, and the way He does things. God’s Law has been in effect and unchanging since He created human beings.
That said, Scripture reveals that the Law of God has been _expressed_ to us in different ways throughout history. God expressed his unchanging principles differently to Adam than he did to Noah or Abraham or Moses. His _principles_ never change, but his _expressions_ do. For example, one of God's unchanging principles is that atonement for sin comes through the shedding of blood (Lev 17:11). This was first expressed in the Garden when God made clothing out of animal skins for Adam & Eve, thus, requiring the shedding of blood (Gen 3:21). It was expressed again when the blood of the Passover lamb saved the nation of Israel from God’s wrath (Exo 12). And later, under the Mosaic Covenant, it was expressed in the ritual animal sacrifices at the temple. And God’s unchanging principle of atonement was later expressed differently under the New Covenant through the “once for all” (Heb 10:10) sacrifice of Christ which saved God’s people from His wrath. So under the New Covenant, Christians still have a sacrifice for atonement: it is the eternal sacrifice of Christ (Heb 9:11-12).
If we view Matt 5:17-20 through this framework we can see how Jesus’ ministry would not have abolished the Mosaic Expression-which was a true, albeit temporary expression-but ultimately fulfilled the ultimate principles of the Law of God. This is nowhere near a complete explanation, of course. But it perhaps gives us a way into understanding the various ways the law is referred to in the NT.
Shalom,
Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Very interesting Rob and Yes I agree morality and what is good is rooted in the essence of Yahweh.. All things that are good were made by him and anything that is lacking or that falls short of his glory or that is void of his nature and qualities would be bad or evil.. and to defy his qualities and holy perfect essence is what it means to sin. Hence why the scriptures say God is love and love fulfills all of the law thereby inversely meaning the lack of love is to transgress the law of God.
But basically you're saying that God's character never changes but the expression of it and revelation of it has been graduating over time?
We started with how it was expressed in the garden but then the circumstances of human life and the human condition were altered therefore a new expression was necessary... Then many more events took place and the former expression wasn't sufficient enough to satisfy God's desires of reconciling mankind back to their creator so its slowly been graduating in expression until we've reached Christ and his newest and greatest covenant which is the fulfillment of the law of God and Christ is the embodiment of the expression of the law of God?
I would agree and I've never looked at it from that perspective but I agree that's biblical. You're incredibly good at looking at things from an angle to uncover the deeper meaning Rob!
But what then would you say about the Zechariah 14:16 prophecy of the Messiahs second coming? That one has me stumped also.
Thanks for replying, you're a tremendous blessing, Shalom brother🤝🫂
@@mpdebate6239 Thanks, MP! Regarding Zech 14:16. Let's suppose that HRM is correct and at the 2nd coming of Messiah, the entire world will be required to make a pilgrimage once a year to the _literal_ Jerusalem (talk about traffic problems!) to worship the Messiah and celebrate the _literal_ Feast of Tabernacles. If that's the case, then what? It would not mean that, therefore, Christians must keep Torah. That's a huge leap to make; a leap not warranted in Scripture. Sure, it would mean that the Feast of Tabernacles would be celebrated and that hotel rooms in Jerusalem would be hard to come by. But I don't see how it even comes close to proving Torah observance is required of Christ-followers.
Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots This is what I was leaning towards myself due to the lack of mentioning of all the other feasts and anything else from the old covenant... And I suppose the reason why this one is special is because of a prophecy which must be fulfilled.
But if in the millennial kingdom, total totah observance would be required, you'd expect to see tons more prophecy and mentioning of it but I have yet to see anything that even refers to such..
Thanks Rob, Shalom ☺
My HR friends are nowvchallenging the accuracy of Strong's Greek Hebrew Lexicon especially when it contradicts their interpretation and meaning.
If the old covenant was made obsolete and we are in the new covenant then I would like to ask what are the contents of this new covenant that I can review before I agree to be a part of it?
I must be missing something cause I don’t see the stipulations to the new covenant in the New Testament.
Hi, EO. If you're interest is legitimate, I would recommend you start with Jeremiah 31:31-34. Then read through Luke 22:14-23; 1 Cor 11:17-34; 2 Cor 3, paying attention to the language about the new covenant. And, of course, Hebrews chapters 8-10 give us a Masters level course on the differences between the old and new covenants. Blessings, Rob
Defending the Biblical Roots of Christianity
Hi Rob. So I read all those and am still seeing that the new covenant is only for the house of Judah and the house of Israel and not with the house of christianity.
If it’s not for Christians then what part do Christians play in the new covenant?
It seems that if it’s not for Christians then what’s the point of telling Christians that they’re in a new covenant.
Messiah said Himself that he ONLY came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And the commands that are to be kept are only for the Israelites and those sojourning with Israel. Both Jeremiah and Hebrews both say that the new covenant is for the house of Judah and the house of Israel and that keeping the commands are a large part of the new covenant.
““Because this is the covenant that I shall make with the house of Yisra’ĕl after those days, says יהוה, giving My laws in their mind, and I shall write them on their hearts, and I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people.
“And they shall by no means teach each one his neighbour, and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know יהוה,’ because they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.”
Iḇ`rim (Hebrews) 8:10-11
““See, the days are coming,” declares יהוה, “when I shall make a renewed covenant with the house of Yisra’ĕl and with the house of Yehuḏah,
“If these laws vanish from before Me,” declares יהוה, “then the seed of Yisra’ĕl shall also cease from being a nation before Me forever.””
Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah) 31:31, 36
@@ForgedinTruth Okay, the next piece of the puzzle is to understand the relationship of Gentiles to Israel under the New Covenant. As I'm sure you know, the phrase "house of Israel" is a Hebrew way of referring to the _family/descendants_ of Israel. And you also know that _Israel_ was the name given to Jacob, Abraham's grandson, and God made a covenant with Abraham. So if we trace that down through history, the "house of Israel"-aka the Israelites or the Jewish people-refers to the physical descendants of Abraham.
Well, Galatians 3:28-29 reveals that under the New Covenant, the descendants of Abraham-those who inherit the promise God made to him-are defined much differently. Ephesians 2:11-22 provides even more detail about what happened to the Gentiles under the New Covenant. As does Romans 11:11-24.
Defending the Biblical Roots of Christianity
I’m sorry but I don’t see that anywhere. Gentiles refers to the nation outside the chosen people of God. The Greek definition is a group of pagan people not in covenant.
Now Peters vision is not about food but as he explains it’s about the gentiles. Then James expands on it to say that they stop those practices that are against Torah and go to hear the Torah every Shabbat so they can Shema (hear and do)
You said the Israelites are the Jewish people and that’s not quite accurate. Every one of the 12 tribes are Israelites but not every Israelite is a Jew (from Judah).
All was lost in the scattering of the 10 tribes due to the mixing with the Gentiles and assimilation into the pagan practices of the gentiles. But God say all over that he will regather is from the four corners of the earth and Messiah even said that he has sheep not of this fold.
“For as many of you as were immersed into Messiah have put on Messiah.”
Galatians 3:27 . A person can not be a practicing homosexual or engaging in beastiality and claim to be the chosen people of God and expect to live with him in the promised land forever. The same goes for the Sabbath, it’s the sign that you belong to God.
I see where gentiles can “cross over” to become an Israelite which is contrary to Christian doctrine which say a person remains a gentile and can continue in lawlessness.
So in all that you’ve provided I only see that the stipulations of the covenant are first for the people group who are no longer to walk in the enmity to the Torah which He abolished. Because like he said He didn’t come to abolish the Torah.
I see much clearer that the covenant has laws to follow and I’m pleased to follow His right rulings and set His Sabbaths apart.
“I am יהוה your Elohim.
Walk in My laws, and guard My right-rulings, and do them.
And set apart My Sabbaths,
and they shall be a sign between Me and you, to know that I am יהוה your Elohim.”
Ezekiel 20:19-20
Shalom EO
@@ForgedinTruth Thanks, EO. I agree that the term "Jew" was originally used to designate the citizens of Judah. But once the people were in exile, the meaning of that term was expanded to include a religious designation. The Jews were different from surrounding peoples in that they preserved a living religious tradition of the one true God. And after the exile, in Ezra 4:12 and Nehemiah 1:2; 4:2 the term “Jews” is used as a national designation to describe the returned exiles. And in the NT “Jew” continued to have the same broader national/religious meaning. Culturally Jews have their own customs which NT writers addressing Gentiles readers found it necessary to explain (Mk 7:3; Jn 5:1; 19:40). And Jews are contrasted with Gentiles (Acts 11:19), Samaritans (Jn 4:9, 22) and proselytes (Acts 2:10).
So, biblically-speaking, a "Gentile" is anyone who is not Jewish. God’s covenant with Abraham created, via Jacob, the Israelite nation (Gen 12, 15, 17). God set Israel apart from other nations as His chosen people (Deut 7:6-8), and He gave them a land to possess (Gen 15:18) and the Law to obey (Exod 19:3-6). Thus, being a Hebrew was a matter of ethnicity, politics, and religion. A Gentile referred to anyone falling outside of these delineations (e.g., Deut 15:6; 2 Sam 7:23; Psa 115:2-8). The term Gentile is used in NT passages about people that do not belong to Israel (Acts 14:1; 1 Cor 1:23). Galatians 3:8 is an example of the different usages: “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles (τὰ ἔθνη, ta ethnē) by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations (τὰ ἔθνη, ta ethnē) be blessed” (ESV).
Blessings,
Rob
Great video! I feel there is validity in the argument of the New Covenant not being established yet and scripture does indeed point to this fact. The destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. as you mentioned in the video was one of the final blows that scattered the House of Israel for the second time and it has remained scattered to this day. Which is also why the Mosaic Priesthood of Aaron vanished and the sacrifices would of course follow since it is only a Priest of Aaron that can preform the sacrifice of flesh and blood. Since the House of Israel has been scattered, how can a new covenant be made with the House of Israel if there is no House of Israel?
Hi, Dalon. Great question!
The phrase “House of” means the household, family, or descendants of someone. So the phrase “House of Jacob” refers to the family or physical descendants of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel (Gen 32:28). In Exodus 19, at Mount Sinai, God tells Moses, “Thus you shall say to the _house of Jacob_ and tell the _people of Israel_ (and in Hebrew, the phrase is literally "sons of Israel.") And this is a classic Hebrew parallelism. The phrase “house of Jacob” means the same thing as “sons of Israel.” It's repetition for emphasis. Both refer to the Jewish people, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.
And the New Covenant was made with the Houses of Israel and Judah (the fullness of God's people) upon Christ's death (Luke 22:20). So the New Covenant had been "cut" (made) and was in place about 40 years before the temple was destroyed. And at that point, whether we can say that the "House of Israel" was scattered at the destruction of the temple is debatable. Were the Jewish people scattered? Yes. Was God's family scattered? No. Because the physical temple serves no purpose under the New Covenant, just like Jesus told the Samaritan woman in John 4, "21...the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. ...23 the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him." Believers in Jesus are now God's temple (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). And there will be no temple in the New Heaven and the New Earth (Rev 21:22).
Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Hello Rob! Do you believe a third temple will be built during the millennial reign? And if so, do you think Jesus would be a priest in it, considering he can't be a priest on earth (Hebrews 8:4)? The New Jerusalem still hasn't descended at this point but will after the millennium, as I'm sure you know. I'm just curious about what your take is.
@@kylefields177 Hey Kyle! I am honestly on the fence about whether the Bible teaches that a third physical temple will be built in Jerusalem. Some passages seem to indicate that could be the case. But what gives me pause are the passages in the NT that clearly indicate that believers are now God's temple (1 Cor 3:16, 1 Cor 6:19-20; Eph 2:13-22). So I am not dogmatic on this issue, especially since the genre of prophetic literature is notoriously difficult to precisely interpret. If there is a third physical temple built, I'm guessing it will be much different than we think.
Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots
Hello again Rob! Thank you for the response. I do have another question. If the Levitical priesthood and the earthly tabernacle are copies and shadows of the heavenly, would it be safe to assume this would carry on in the future? Especially when Hebrews 8:4-5 as well as verse 13 speak in the present tense (considering the New Jerusalem has not descended)? I only ask because these earthly priests were still in service, long after the Resurrection and Pentecost. Not only that, believers (and I do understand how believers are the Temple of God) were participating in said services. In Acts 21:20-26 James recommends Paul to undergo a Nazirite vow with other believers (the four men with us - verse 23. In verse 24 James said to take them and join them since Paul was likely already under said vow Acts 18:18) to prove to all other Jews that he walked in accordance with the law. James even reiterates the council's decision regarding the gentile believers in verse 25, which appears to imply the law to still be binding to Paul, or why even mention it? In Acts 22:17 Paul was even worshipping in the Temple. In light of all this, I believe the only way anyone can conclude that "what is old and has waxed away" is if they're in the camp of hyper-preterism; and I say this out of love for the ones involved in it, but they appear to be nothing more than modern-day Sadducees.
The priesthood was changed with Christ. The destruction of the temple is irrelevant in that sense. That’s what Hebrews is talking about. Don’t go back to sacrifices. That’s spitting in Christs death. They were being pressured and persecuted to deny Christ and Hebrews is telling them not too.
I mean we don't know the author of the book of Job, and there is other books as well where the author is not certain.
To any Hebrew Rooter/Torah Observer how do you reconcile Deu 23 1 with Isaiah 56 3-5 and the Ethiopian Eunuch of Acts 8? If believers are suppose to be “Torah Observant” and Eunuchs are banned from joining the congregation/assembly?
“Thus said יהוה,
“Guard right-ruling,
and do righteousness,
for near is My deliverance to come, and My righteousness to be revealed.
“Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who becomes strong in it,
guarding the Sabbath lest he profane it, and guarding his hand from doing any evil.”
Isaiah 56:1-2
How about it in context. These people are doing the commands and setting the Sabbath apart according to how God wants us to set it apart.
And Duet. Is referring to the Qahal or the house of God in that incident. Look it up in Leviticus where it’s hand in hand between the whole body and the priesthood
““The children of the third generation born to them do enter the assembly of יהוה.”
Deuteronomy 23:8
When God Himself is in your midst walking in the camp you must have protocols. If our King Yahshua (Jesus) came to your house for dinner would you not clean your place up?
@@ForgedinTruth No man observed Sabbath before Moses according to the dead sea scrolls. Secondly this name Yahshua is fake and not real Hebrew you must be using the Cepher made by a PhD in Philosophy and not Semitic Languages. Secondly your interpretation of Deu 23 8 is wrong as we have Israelite sources that say yes a Moabite/Ammonite man can no join the covenant ever. Therefore the entire context of the assembly is about joining Israel itself and being apart of the covenant and not your interpretation.
Text here
1When the feast of Passover came, on the fifteenth of the first month, a Moabite shepherd came to David and talked with him saying: “My lord the king, you have known that I, your servant, have been loyal to Israel from my youth, and now take me away from dwelling among uncircumcised people and circumcise the flesh of my foreskin to take away my reproach, so that I can sit among your people.” 2And David said: “the LORD does not want your people, and He commanded,
‘An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD forever.’
Deuteronomy 23:3
And we cannot seek your peace nor your prosperity; but how can I help you today?” 3The servant answered: “Is it not it true that Ruth was of our people, and you are one of her children and descendants, and the LORD has chosen you and your descendants forever?” 4Then said he: “You have given a convincing argument. Stand here with me to ask from the mouth of my Lord.” 5And David asked the LORD about the statement of the Moabite servant. 6And David said: “O LORD, LORD of Hosts, teach me wondrous things out of Your Law so that I may know how to rule for this servant, and what should be done with him.” 7And the LORD said to Nathan the prophet: “Go to David My servant, and tell him the message that I tell you.” 8And Nathan went to David, to his chambers, saying: “This is what the LORD of Hosts says: ‘I have heard your prayer, so tell the Moabite: ‘You are a Moabite man, not a Moabite woman, for I never said a ‘Moabite woman’ and ‘Ammonite woman,’ because their women and daughters belong to the LORD; however you are cursed by the LORD, and forbidden to enter the LORD’s assembly.” 9When the Moabite heard the message of the LORD, he cried out and exclaimed: “I am forbidden from entering the assembly of the LORD.” 10And the king took him and appointed him a shepherd among David’s shepherds, and he was there until the third year of the reign of King Solomon, then he died. 11And he had a daughter whose name was Sephirah; she had a beautiful form and was very fair to look upon. King Solomon took her to be his concubine, and she found grace and favor in his sight more than all the other concubines, and she became the chief of the concubines’ residence. 12And this became the statute in Israel forever.
Jonathan Gesner
One thing we do know is it’s not Jesus.
His name is יהושצ but you know that.
I use kjv esv and isr scriptures
If you check back you can verify that the Moabites were utterly destroyed. Only the city remained by that name which would make it impossible for them to enter.
Also there’s this...“All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Ḥittites, the Perizzites, the Ḥiwwites, and the Yeḇusites, who were not of the children of Yisra’ĕl - their descendants who were left in the land after them, whom the children of Yisra’ĕl had not been able to destroy completely - from these Shelomoh raised compulsory labour, as it is to this day.”
1 Kings 9:20-21
@@ForgedinTruth actually they weren’t utterly destroyed the Cannanites were also utterly destroyed but the Lebanese people are their direct descendants. That is a passage not to be taken in a hyper literal sense actual the text debunks your claim as it says their descendants were made slaves. More then likely the Jordanian people are likely to be the descendants of Moab and Ammon probably more Ammon as their capital gets its name from there
Jonathan Gesner
“And Siḥon and all his people came out against us to fight at Yahats,” and יהוה our Elohim gave him over to us, so we struck him, and his sons, and all his people. “And we took all his cities at that time, and we put the men, women, and little ones of every city under the ban, we left none remaining.”
Deḇarim (Deuteronomy) 2:32-34
““And we captured all his cities at that time. There was not a city which we did not take from them: sixty cities, all the district of Argoḇ, the reign of Oḡ in Bashan. “All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates and bars, besides a great many unwalled towns. “And we put them under the ban, as we did to Siḥon sovereign of Ḥeshbon, putting the men, the women, and the children of every city under the ban.”
Deḇarim (Deuteronomy) 3:4-6 TS2009
“And יהוה said to Mosheh, “Do not fear him, for I have given him into your hand, with all his people and his land. And you shall do to him as you did to Siḥon sovereign of the Amorites, who dwelt at Ḥeshbon.” And they struck him, and his sons, and all his people, until no remnant was left to him. And they took possession of his land.”
Bemiḏbar (Numbers) 21:34-35
““Therefore, as I live,” declares יהוה of hosts, the Elohim of Yisra’ĕl, “Mo’aḇ shall be like Seḏom, and the children of Ammon like Amorah - a possession for weeds and a pit of salt, and a waste forever, the remnant of My people plunder them, and the rest of My nation possess them.””
Tsephanyah (Zephaniah) 2:9
“For the hand of יהוה rests on this mountain, and Mo’aḇ is trodden down under Him, as straw is trodden down in the water of a dunghill.”
Yeshayah (Isaiah) 25:10
Rob I have another question, what is the old covenant and what is the new covenant?
HI, KP. The old is the Sinai covenant, the new is the new. -R.
@@TheBiblicalRoots what is the Sinai covenant?
@@TheBiblicalRoots Rob the reason I’m asking those questions is to identify what you talking about, for example when you say the Sinai covenant, I want to know what is in the Sinai covenant, I want to know what is in the law of Moses
Make it plan that I may understand, I listen to your program and find them very interested
@@kingPerry34 Hi, KP. Thanks for explaining. The Law of Moses is found all across the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It includes the 10 commandments and about 600 or so other commands and laws that Yahweh gave to Israel at Mount Sinai. The Sinai covenant starts in Exodus 19. God tells Israel that if they obey his laws, they will be blessed, and if they disobey them they will be cursed. The blessings and curses can be found in Deuteronomy 28. Hope that helps!
Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots thank you I do understand now
Great video. However your last few sentences would be very confusing to someone who has been swayed by the Hebrew roots movement. So how do you explain that to someone who was just a new Christian and then was captured by HRM. What do you mean that the law has not been “abolished” basically?
My same question
Hi Leona. BCS asked a very similar question so I'll paste some of what I said to them here.
This is one of the biggest difficulties in the discussion between Torah-observant Christians and mainstream Christianity. Our use of terminology can vary quite a bit so we sometimes end up talking past each other. For example, are the _Torah_ and the _Law of Moses_ two different things? Is the _Law of Moses_ different than the _Mosaic Covenant?_ And is the _Law of God_ different than the _Law of Moses?_ The answer you'll get to these questions depends on who you ask. In my opinion, the answer to each question is "yes." And there is some added confusion in the English translations, where the word _torah_ is most often translated into English as law. However, that Hebrew word sometimes just means teaching or instruction, not specifically law or the Law of Moses.
So I believe the Sinai Covenant-the contract or agreement between God and Israel made at Mount Sinai through Moses-has ended. But it is still recorded in the Bible and, as a historical event or process, it has much to reveal to us about how God operates and what is important to Him. And the Law of Moses-the set of commandments and regulations that God established through Moses which served as the terms of the Sinai Covenant-has either changed or ended, depending on how you look at it. So, while the legal Shabbat requirements, kosher food restrictions, Levitical priesthood, temple sacrifices, etc. are no longer required of God's people, the principles behind those commandments remain true.
The principles behind the Mosaic Law are what I refer to as the _Law of God._ And the Law of God existed long before the Law of Moses was given at Sinai. I view the Law of God as the unchanging, universal principles and moral values that God established for mankind from the very beginning. It's not just grounded in Yahweh’s unchanging moral perfection but His very nature. It reflects His heart. That said, the Law of God has been expressed to us in different ways throughout history. He expressed it one way to Adam, another way to Noah, yet another way to Abraham, and so on. And one of those expressions, of course, was through Moses. And the Law of Moses, while not an active, binding law today, is still recorded in the Bible and as a historical truth can teach us a lot about the heart of God.
Hope I didn't add to the confusion! Shalom, Rob
Defending the Biblical Roots of Christianity
Is there anywhere in scripture that would suggest that there’s a difference between the Torah and the law of Moses?
Is there anywhere in scripture that would suggest that the commandments that are contained in the Sinai covenant are not for today?
(Besides the offerings in the temple service.)
Where do the 10 commandments fit into this idea that’s the law of Moses has ended?
Defending the Biblical Roots of Christianity
Yah makes it known to the prophets what he’s doing so the prophets can tell the people. Is there anywhere’s left of Matthew that would back up you beliefs?
Normally to avoid the idea that people would blindly follow a man, that man would make his case with the scriptures. As to avoid from being a casualty of Deut 13
@@ForgedinTruth presuming your question is in the affirmative that the law of Moses or the Law for Israel is in force for Christians can you share with your own bible study how they would apply today? We can certainly learn spiritual truths from them and learn about the Character of God but how can we “do the law of Moses or for Israel today”. And if you say yes what is the Law of Christ and how that encompasses the whole law. How would walking in the Spirit as opposed to the flesh come into play? And what did the death of Christ accomplish for us?
I would assume that you would say that in obeying the Law of Christ, you also obey Torah. I could agree with that. But, would you say that line of thinking requires some level of knowledge of Torah? I'm only one guy so I don't have a proper perspective to observe all of Christianity. But, I am a Christian, and I haven't always considered the "Law of Moses". Neither have I observed any other main stream Christian consider the "Law of Moses" as something applicable. So if Torah has value in relation to the mainstream Christian, and the "Law of Christ", can you explain why many mainstream Christians have little knowledge of something that you have said has value? Is It possible to properly understand what the "law of Christ" is without having a context of the Mosaic law?
Yes, I believe it is possible to live out the "Law of Christ" without understanding the context of the Mosaic law. If someone only had the New Testament, and they had come to faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit dwells within them, they could understand that we live out our obedience by following the two commandments Jesus said everything else hangs on: love God and love people. " Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ," (Gal 6:2). So they could "properly understand," but I don't think anyone can "fully understand" without the OT. And even then, a full understanding is difficult! Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Thank you Brother, Shalom!
Right! The Mosaic covenant is obsolete as a vehicle for attaining righteousness, which no one was ever able to do! Messiah came to make us righteous because the Mosaic Covenant could NOT. Thus, God cancelled out the OLD Covenant in order to establish a NEW Covenant, in Messiah, and no longer countenances anyone who is trying to bypass His SON in order to establish their own righteousness, trying to keep the OLD.
Wow, nice point about the Torah not having an official author.
I believe Hebrews 8 is speaking of the Levitical covenant and it’s failures. In Malachi it says “You have corrupted the covenant of Levi says the Lord of hosts” So in Hebrews when it says “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better since it is enacted on better promises.” Christ as our high priest will never be corrupt, he does not have to offer sacrifices for his own sin as the levites did, it was once for all AND now his law would be written on our hearts and we would be given the spirit to help us keep his commands. That is the new covenant and the better promises. 💗
The thing to understand is that renewed covenant people understand and teach that the Sinai covenant is for ever. So how did it end? Did God just zap it?
Once you see the scriptures from the perspective of marriage you will see that the Sinai covenant was a marriage. As detailed in Jeremiah 31:31.
It ended only because one party died. God manifest in the flesh, died on the cross. The husband was among his bride and they did not know.
The husband drank the cup and took the punishment.
That covenant ended. There is a better one
Rob, its clearly says that the new covenant is based on better promises, not on a different or better law.
Yeshua taught the laws but Paul said faith so who is right??
Jesus during his ministry was under the law it wasn’t until his death that the new covenant was initiated Paul by faith in Christ died to the law and became a minister of the new covenant therefore there is no contradiction.
could it be you totally missed the whole point..it has to do with the placement...Heb 8:10 For this is the COVENANT that I will make with the house of ISRAEL l after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my "LAWS "into their MIND, and write them on their HEARTS, and I will be their GOD, and they shall be my PEOPLE
Many do not follow the antecedent of pronouns. Daniel 9:26, and 27 is very clear when it says and HE shall confirm THE covenant. What covenant? The one just mentioned in verses 24 and 25. How that magically turned into a future peace treaty, a third temple when the second temple wasn’t even built yet and the Messiah becoming an antichrist is beyond me. Until people learn to read the Bible in context and not add to the scriptures or take away, they will always end up following the false. Hebrews is obviously talking about the new covenant that was promised in Genesis 3:15 and in several other old testament passages. The law was ADDED as Paul taught to curb sin.
It’s about priesthood! We are now under under a new high priest in the excellents of the heavens. Covenant is now Melchizedek. It was supposed to be at the mountain with a kingdom of priest, but after the golden calf breach, the levitical priest (grace) went into effect until messiah came. John the immerser was the last legal priest through Levi. He transferred the priesthood at the baptism and made it righteous, then they killed him. Caiaphus was the illegal high priest at the time, but he tore his priest garments when they put HIM under oath, thus nullifying his priesthood, making Jesus the only one left for the Passover. Being both the high priest and the lamb. The alpha and omega! Praise!!!
"For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." (Heb 7:12)
@@TheBiblicalRoots amen! The law of circumcision is now done by the master, the law of the tabernacle is the body (church). We become the living sacrifice (daily death to self). We keep the tabernacle clean. The Passover points to messiah and our freedom from the curse of the law. We partake of the bread(church) and the wine (baptism). The spirit is brought to us on Pentecost as it’s is written bringing the law on our hearts and helps us through the trials and tribulations, while we wait for that day we hear that shout, judgement, and the wedding feast on tabernacles! The law sure did change. It was amplified! And we wait for more!
Rob, Yes I am a Torahist but not according to the negative definition that you coined the last few years. I embrace the over 3K year old definition that Jesus, the Aleph Tav, practiced and is quite positive and needed in our lawless world.
Psalms 119:1,4 (Aleph)
"1 How blessed are those whose way is blameless, Who walk in the Torah of the YHVH....4 You have ordained Your precepts, That we should keep them diligently."
Psalms 119:172,174 (Tav)
"172 Let my tongue sing of Your word, For all Your commandments are righteousness...
174 I long for Your Yeshuah, O YHVH, And Your Torah is my delight."
The lawless anomia teaching you promote overall is what Balaam was condemned for and Jesus severely reproved the church of Pergamum for practicing in the last days (Rev 2:14). Paul warns the fleshly mind, opposite the Spirit, is hostile and unable to subject itself to the Law of God (Rom 8:7).
In response to the comments regarding rejecting the book of Hebrews, here are my thoughts. Life is not just black and white. As student of scripture, Peter tells me to examine the Tanahk carefully like the Berean's and reject what is not in it (Acts 17:11). You comparing the book of Hebrews with the books of Torah due to the lack of firm authorship is not apples to apples. Yeshau quoted the Torah with no issues, he didn't quote the book of Hebrews. Also Hebrews has two errors recorded in it but Christian Orthodoxy affirms the words of God are infallible. The two errors for your followers to take note of are; Moses didn't write in either Exodus or Leviticus that he sprinkle the Book of the Covenant with blood (Heb 9:19b), and the Golden Alter of Incense was not placed in the Holy of Holies (Exo 30:6-7) as per the author of Hebrews (Heb 9:3-4). So two errors are written by the unknown author of Hebrews. As a student, this is difficult to wrestle with. You seem to excuse this by giving Hebrews authority over the Torah. Call me a radical, a Torahist, that guy, I gladly accept. Martin T.
Hos 8:12
"Though I wrote for him ten thousand percepts of my Torah, they are regarded as a foreign thing."
Thanks, flyguy! Here's a short quote from my book _Torahism_ to help clarify something:
"I coined the term Torahism because this belief system is centered on the return to, and keeping of, the Torah. And I would hasten to add that the term Torahism is not intended in a derogatory sense. It is merely a convention for describing a belief system and its adherents. When I refer to someone as a Torahist, it is no different than referring to someone as a Christian, Jew, or Muslim."
Also, I want to mention that I place Hebrews and the Torah on the same level when it comes to authority. Both are Holy Scripture, both are true, and I submit myself to the authority of both.
Regarding the "errors" you mentioned, I agree with you. In fact, there are actually more inconsistencies there than you listed. And that's something we need to wrestle with as students of Scripture. Maybe the author was drawing on material that was partly derived from traditions known to him that weren't specified in the Tanakh. I'm not sure. At the end of the day, those details don't change what is being taught in those passages. Namely, the Mosaic Covenant required a specific set of tabernacle rituals and was ratified by blood.
Shalom!
Rob
Better sacrifice? Better temple? Better high priest? So the law is the same, or there is better law as well?
“When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.”
Hebrews 7:12
@@TheBiblicalRoots well done Rob, you just agree that the law is still required, just its been changed a bit, for example, about the sacrifices about the priesthood, but nothing else is changed. The law is still binding and required, even though changed.
@@radostinvasilev599 "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" (Rom. 7:6).
RLS
👍👍👍
There was Torah before mosses, but because of the hardness of your hearts did mosses give you divorce
So all that talk about “all generations” is a lie?
Hi Richard! The Hebrew phrase לְדֹרֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם (which is translated into English as "throughout your generations" or "for generations to come") is an idiom that means a long period of time of an indeterminate length.
If it literally meant "forever and ever" then the Torah would be lying when it says things like, "It shall be a regular burnt offering throughout your generations at the entrance of the tent of meeting before the Lord" (Exod. 29:42). Because (a.) the "tent of meeting" was later replaced by the temple, and (b.) the temple was later destroyed, putting an end to all burnt offerings.
Shalom, RLS
Sorry Mr. Solberg , you are too advanced for me .
I felt my brain overheating .
1000$ challenge, Read Jeremiah 31:31-34 and tell me were in the New C,
Keep your money, we are in the new covenant age.
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
Watch the UA-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Professing to bewise they became fools Satan's brilliant
This guy should play an older version of Jon snow
LOL! Maybe I'll wear a black fur cape and wear a sword in my next video.
@@TheBiblicalRoots lol
Solberg is totally wrong in his interpretation as well as many Bible - translations . The Hebrew text which do not have the word Covenant is thinking on totally different way. It is not about Covenants but it is about how the readers of Hebrew should understand how to focus on the Torah-laws. it is not above you as a pedagogue but it is within you, just as what Jeremiah 31. 31 fv is saying. What was the problem? They did not hold a Torah-life but by laying the Laws into the minds and the hearts they would obey the Torah-law.! The old way to only view the Laws as something outside is growing old but the Law inside is to be continue in the life of the believers. The letter to Hebrews is not written to Jews but to non-Jews, since the description of the Temple in chapter 9 is of no need for any Jew.
So all Covenant is valid today! Sinai-covenant is eternal with the celebration of the Shabbat as a eternal Sign of the covenant. Eternal is Eternal or should we understand the Eternal life through Christ as a limit time? No just as the Eternallife is eternal so is also the covenants. if the Sinai-Covenant is not valid today, we do not have any Jewish people who is just Jewish because to the Covenant. And if we do not have any Sinai-covenant Jewish people, we do not have any Israel as a fullfilled promise. And if we do not have a holy Israel but just a state as all the others Messiah can´t come.
All the covenants is valid: Noah- covenant; Avraham-covenant, Sinai-covenant; The priestly- covenant; the Moav-covenant, and the Covenant of David, and the New ( or renew) covenant. Allt this seven covenant is valid. But Solberg is an anti-Judaistik promoter which ideas is dividing the believers. Thanks to G-d that I am not a Christian but am a Jew. At last the truth is coming to more and more people. Solberg is lael as a professor, but seems to have only low undergratuating exam. How can anybody be a professor exempt if the titles is from Free churches Bible schools without any solid university educations. BD. MA in Comparative religions.
I'll be honest, I am trying really hard to understand your point of view. This is not to be insulting, but I can think of no other way to put it: it seems like you are "tap dancing" to me. The Bible is one story from beginning to end, not patchwork.
The Word is supposed to be so simple even a child can understand. This is my understanding as childish as it may be. All have fallen short of the glory of God. The glory is the perfect will of God. Sin is transgression of the law. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life. Greater love hath no man than he lay is life down for his friends. God demonstrated his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. That if you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth ...you will be saved. God will repay each person according to what they have done. For the report of your obedience has reached all; therefore, I am rejoicing over you but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
The good and perfect will of the father is his instruction. For I give you good doctrine that you may walk in it.
His torah is truth. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.
Rob, that means I have fallen short of God's perfection, his Law. I repented. And I turned back to The Way. In all sincerity.
new covenant happens at the resurrection. writer of hebrews says it hasnt happened yet. hebrews was written 30-70yrs post messiahs death....
at that time. heb 8. says for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest. That hasnt happened yet. For i will remember their sins no more. that hasnt happened yet. I will write my laws on their hearts. that hasnt happend yet. i have no laws written on my heart..
this happens at the resurrection.
Hey, Pete! Where does Hebrews say that the Resurrection hasn't happened yet?
@@TheBiblicalRoots does everyone know the lord? are their any laws truly written on our hearts? For at that time i will remember their sin no more....
None of this happened yet. This is the new covenant. This happens at our resurrection. When everyone will know the lord, and nobody will ask who he is. For they will all know me at this time. I was truly write my laws on their hearts and they will like the messiah. Sinless.
What is growing old is ready to vanish. Yep, hasnt happened yet.
Hebrews was written 40-70yrs post the messiahs death and says new covenant hasnt happened yet.
@@peteholms9298 Where does Hebrews say that the New Covenant has not happened yet?
@@TheBiblicalRoots what is growing old, is ready to vanish. Ready to. Hasnt happened. If i am ready to go the store, i have not yet went.
Hebrews was written 40-70 years after messiahs death.
Read it. none of it has happened. I have no laws truly written on my heart. not everyone knows the lord. But on that day of new covenant they will.
@@peteholms9298 it was written shortly before the destruction of the temple so getting ready to pass away was literally talking about a near future prophecy and not some far distant future prophecy Indo.
I assume you are also aware that in the ancient near east a covenant/contract is sealed and inaugurated with blood. Christs blood sealed the new covenant
And here is Satan's greatest deception, the division of YHWH's people into two incomplete "faiths". If you claim covenant with YHWH, then you ARE part of Israel or under the tent of Jacob. To be in covenant with Him is more than acknowledging His death, burial and resurrection, for "Many" will claim Him as Master, yet He will reject them who work lawlessness (Matt 7:21-23).
Iniquity = Lawlessness!
Exod 33:13 Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found favour in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may KNOW THEE, that I may find favour in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people. 14 And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.
Hosea 5:4 They will not frame their doings to turn unto their Elohim: for the spirit of whoredoms is in the midst of them, and they have not KNOWN יהוה.
The division of the kingdom by YHWH, and the subsequent creation of a "new religion" by the northern House of Israel (Ephraim), is the perfect shadow of christianity and ALL of her derivations. For it was the fear of the people returning to Jerusalem at the feasts of YHWH, etc... which caused the king to create a "new church". I Kings 12:24-33, but really all of the chapter and others. It was always His plan to divorce, disperse, sift and regather the House of Israel (Ephraim, Northern Kingdom, House of Joseph, etc...) through the nations. Back into One (echad) people (Ezek 37).
Contrasting His Eternal Truth vs the dogma of religions (ie "papal infallibility", dispensationalism, osas, tulip, replacement Th, et al) is something which I would rather rest my soul. It is the undeniable history of "the church" and all that it has done "in the name of god" to not only those *IT* called "heretics", but it's very own people which speaks volumes as to whom we should put our emunah (trust + obedience). The cycle of man's religion vs the Way of YHWH. The Good tree can ONLY bring forth good fruit, yet the corrupt tree can only bring forth evil fruit, no matter what facade it tries to convince you of.
I am not posting this to divide, just offering a wider lens to His Word vs the myopic lens of religion.
If you have to ignore, sidestep and twist plain concepts:
Immutable, unchanging, eternal
does not lie or change His mind AS MEN DO
Has One means to weigh and measure (judge) and it is eternal and perfect
One covenant people
Cyclic History
Messiah Prophet likened unto Moses, would speak ONLY that which YHWH (I change not) gave Him to speak
Torah ("law") of YHWH = Torah of Moses = Torah of Messiah
much more...
Truth does not require the redefining or creation of words to represent that which has been from the beginning. You will only find the supplanting of the Truth to redefine, redirect and obfuscate.
"jesus" for Yeshua/Yahshua/Yahoushua (Salvation/YAH will save)
"christ" for Messiah/Annointed
"sunday" for THE Sabbath, the Eternal sign for YHWH's covenanted people, to all generations, native born or grafted in
"christian" for Messianic, biblical Hebraic "faith" in the promised Hebrew/Jewish Seed/King of Israel (not rabbinic judaism)
"church" for Qahal/Ekklesia - THE called out assembly is Israel/Jacob's tent (not the secular nation)
"convert[ed]" for Repent or turn (Teshuva) from evil (lawless/sin) and towards YHWH
"easter" for Passover/Pesach
"pentecost" for Shavuot or YHWH's feast of weeks
"baptism" for Immersion / Mikvah ie Yochannan ("john") the Immerser
there are more...
All are man made wedges to divide. This is the cyclic history of man. Research the history of Judea leading up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and Jerusalem in 135 AD. Learn how the persecution and taxation of Hebrews was the catalyst for the growing Greek influence in causing the wedge of separation to be planted. Also read regarding Epiphanius or any other ante-nicene "church" father and see the visceral hate they had for anything "jewish". Martin Luther was a "jew" loathing "anti-semite". See his own writings, as there is no dearth of information regarding this subject. I do warn that you have to be careful in the sources used, as there are extreme polar opposites that paint as evil or squeaky clean (yet still tainted) an image of Luther as possible.
ALL of the apostles and first century Messianic sect of Judaism known as the Way (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22) were, until their deaths, Torah pursuing followers of Messiah Yahshua. YHWH has continually rebuilt, restored and renewed through repentance. There is nothing new in the writings of the apostles, only the clarification or complete fulfilling of meaning of how to Love YHWH and your neighbor. Showing us that it is NOT only mechanics of Torah (building habits) required to Love, but to do it from the heart. What is this Re[new]ed covenant, but to circumcise the heart of man, that we would desire to know and abide eternally in His Torah/Love. Deut 10 is a nice (shadow) summation, along with Jer 31, Ezek 36 and Heb 8.
Believe and walk as you will, but, as for me and my house, we will serve the Holy One of Israel. The Elohim of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. The Father of THE Messiah Yahshua. Father to ALL natural and adopted covenanted Israel.
YHWH bless thee, and keep thee: YHWH make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: YHWH lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
So you get to point 3 and just decide to lie about the text. The Greek words for high priest, priest, and minister are used 6 times in the first 4 verse of chapter 8. You said the word for priesthood was not in the original text. That is a lie. Further anyone using basic literacy skills and logic can see this is about the priesthood. I challenge everyone to read chapter 8 without the added word of covenant, except for the quote of Jeremiah 31, fro verse 1 to the end of the chapter and tell me again how it's not about the priesthood. You are so bent on proving those you disagree with wrong that you are willing to lie about God's word and misrepresent it. I pray you repent before the Lord.
I appreciate your passion, John17! But I would caution you about jumping to the assumption that I was lying, rather than offering an honest interpretation of the text that you happen to disagree with. Bearing false witness is a serious thing to God. In this video, I claimed that the Greek word for "priesthood" is not found in the text of Hebrews 8:13. You claimed this is a lie. Can you show me where in verse 13 that word is found?
BTW I echo your challenge! Read Hebrews 8 in its entirety, and when you get to the last verse, do not include the word "covenant." See what you think that final verse is talking about. Or you could read the Darby or Young's Literal English translations which don't include that word.
Shalom,
Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Read Jeremiah 31;31-34 and tell me were in the New C. today.
@@TheBiblicalRoots First of all you implied the statement about the whole chapter not just 8:13. Secondly I never take one verse out of context. That is pretext. Third it is clear from chapter 8 in it's context that the topic is the levitical priesthood. Whole the Greek words for new and old are used so are the Greek words for first and second. If this passage is referring to covenants then the words first and second don't make sense and neither does old and new. The covenant made at Sanai was not the first covenant so that does not work in this context and language. You are unfortunately so hell bent on being right you are being dishonest with the text of scripture. I pray you come to repentance and stop hating your brothers and sisters who you disagree with.
@@Jeffmacaroni1542 that’s because he can’t
Christianity has no biblical roots: I asked You many Scriptural ?'s on your, "is Esus/Jesus our Sabbath" video and you still have not answered any of them. As I said, You as all Christians are followers of Esus/Jesus the Anti-Messiah, but you have no clue who
Messiah Yahshua is or who Eloah, i.e., Father Yah is as the Creator of everything.
2 Corinthians 4:4 - In their case the Elohim/god of this world (Esus/Jesus Horus Krishna/Christ) has blinded the minds of the
unbelievers (Eloah's errant people Christians, i.e., Babylonians), to keep them from seeing the Light (What is this Light that is being spoken of? I asked you some ?'s concerning this already, You have no clue) of the gospel of the glory of Messiah, who is the image of Eloah. (A likeness and representation of Eloah. Messiah Yahshua is in the Image of Father Yah's Love and Righteousness.)
Luke 6:39, 40 / 39 - Yahshua also told them this parable: "Can the blind (Babylonian Christian False doctrine teachers) lead the blind?
(Babylonian Christian laypeople) Will not they both fall into a pit? (As they have / Strong's#3920 - to catch (in a net, trap or pit);
generally to capture or occupy - Exactly what Satan has done through Esus/Jesus! He has cast a net of doctrinal lies taught by his
False Babylonian/Trinitarian teachers that have trapped Eloah's errant people within there hearts and minds to follow him.
Because they follow Satan through Jesus they have been captured by him and there hearts and minds are also occupied by Satan.
As such they all have fallen into a pit of perverted false doctrinal lies which is leading to your destruction.)
40 - A disciple (chosen son of Father Yah) is not above his teacher (Messiah Yahshua), but everyone when he is fully trained (as I
am) will be like (a resemblance to) his teacher. (Messiah Yahshua)
I also asked You if you could explain everyone of Messiah Yahshua's Parables in intimate detail, I am still waiting.
We both know why you did not attempt to answer any of the Scriptural ?'s I asked, because You as all False doctrine teachers do not have any wisdom concerning Eloah's Dabar. I also pointed out through a few of the ?'s that I asked you, and then answered for you how "You" Willfully ignore the Scriptural truth right in front of You.
Father Yahweh (Yahuah/Yahuwah etc.) is Going To Destroy and Consume all of you!
I have already pointed out the Wisdom concerning the Fathers Name Yah/Yahu and the Sons Name Yahshua in Scripture, which again
you have Willfully ignored.
Yahchonan/John 8:47 - Whoever is (a child) of Eloah hears the Dabarim (Words) of Eloah. The reason You (Christian) do not hear them
is that You (Christian) are not of Eloah. (Again, Why is the 5th scroll/chapter of the Torah called Dabarim?)
In order to understand what Hebrews 8 is talking/speaking about, you first have to know the answer to these ?'s:
1 - How many Covenants are there in Scripture, and Why this number?
2 - What are each of the Covenant Names within Scripture?
3 - What is the implied Scriptural meaning from each Covenant to the next Covenant?
4 - What are the 3 Transpositions of Eloah's Dabar/Word within Scripture?
5 - What are the 3 degrees of Sin in Scripture, and how do they apply throughout Scripture?
6 - Why is Obedience better than Sacrifice in Scripture? What is it that the chosen son/daughter is Obedient to within Scripture?
I have already shown through Scripture in a prior post why Obedience is better than Sacrifice, which You have Willfully ignored.
To be Obedient is to be a suffering servant by going through the Judgements in the Torah within the Doctrine of Righteousness
as you are corrected as chosen son of Eloah in your physical life by the Judgements.
7 - What is the Doctrine of Righteousness according to Scripture?
Revelation 2:27 - And Yahshua will rule them with a Rod of Iron (What is this Rod of Iron Yahshua is going to rule them with?)
as when earthen pots (What are these earthen pots? Why are they called earthen pots?) are broken in pieces (What does this
mean within Scripture?), even as I myself (as have I) received authority from My Father. (Yahweh)
Revelation 19:15 - From Yahshua's mouth comes a (double edged) sword (Letter of the Torah on the Left side, i.e., Destruction
// Spirit of the Torah on the Right side, i.e., the Love and Righteousness of Eloah / See Hebrews 4:12 / Revelation 1:12 - 16 / 2:12
Tehillim/Psalm 149:6 // 2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture (You do not get to cherry pick and choose which Scripture) is breathed out
by Eloah (Every Word that flows from the Mouth of Eloah is a Commandment!) and profitable for teaching (all of Eloah's Truth), for reproof (to have the ability to reprimand and rebuke, precisely what I am doing to You), for correction (through the Letter of
the Torah! So tell me how can a Christian/Babylonian correct anybody when they have thrown out the Torah which teaches you
how to identify Sin. I also showed and explained this through Scripture which You have Willfully ignored), and for training in
(Eloah's) righteousness.
(Which is taught through the Torah, the Letter of the Torah teaches and leads you to the Spirit of the Torah. back to verse 15):-
with which to strike down the nations (through the Judgements in the Letter of the Torah) and Yahshua will rule them with a
Rod of Iron (Again, What is this Rod of Iron?). Yahshua will tread the winepress (What is the physical to spiritual parallel of the
Winepress?) of the fury of the wrath (Where does the wrath of Eloah derive itself from?) of Eloah. (The {Only} Mighty One!)
I have already proven for those with ears to hear, eyes to see, and a heart to perceive you do not have any Wisdom, Understanding
or Knowledge of Eloah's Dabar.
I will do Hebrews 8 time permitting.
Nabi Yahqob
Interesting that you are quoting from the Christian Bible, that was Canonized, both the OT & NT by Christian Men of God who Worshipped the Triune God on Sunday and weren't under the Law of Moses
Hello again, Yahqob! Good to hear from you. You have lots to say and that's great. Your comments are always welcome here. That said, to set your expectations appropriately, I do not have the time or inclination to answer every question you pose. Largely because the comments section on UA-cam is not conducive to complex, multi-threaded lines of argument.
In my previous video, we talked about who Jesus is and you were unable to establish any support or evidence for your Esus/Jesus claim. As for your comment above, I'd love to engage on your first point. You said, "Christianity has no biblical roots." This makes me think that you and I must have different definitions of either _Christianity_ or _the Bible._ Because the only place the story of Christianity can be found-and the very source of its teachings and beliefs-is Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments. So in what way are you suggesting that "Christianity has no biblical roots"?
@@salpezzino8650 - Christian Bible not even close! The Torah, Writers and Prophets along with Messiah Yahshua's words
are all Hebrew. Yes, they were Christian, i.e., Babylonian men of God, i.e., Ba'al, who perverted the Bible, and they did worship the Abominable trinity and its Evil Unrighteous Perverted Doctrine. And your right Christians, i.e., Babylonians have removed themselves from abiding in the Torah when it comes to Eloah's Dabar/Word. But then again you follow your own made up Babylonian trinity doctrine that originated with Nimrod/Tammuz and Ishtar. You also worship Satan's fake never existed son Esus/Jesus Horus Krishna/Christ, this IS the Great Deception.
Your response is typical of a Christian, you have no wisdom of Eloah's Dabar.
As a metaphorical example: Christians claim they can do Calculus, but when called out they can't even do simple addition.
Christians, i.e. Babylonian trinitarians cannot even answer the most elementary ?'s when it comes to Eloah's Dabar/Word.
ALL the ?'s that I have put forward in this video, and the video I quoted above are within Scripture and explained by Scripture and I am barely scratching the surface concerning Eloah's Dabar. Christians think they get a free ride, the only free ride a Christian is going to get is the one to the Physical and Eternal graveyard. So Saith Yahweh!
Unless you want to learn the Narrow Way, do not bother replying back to me.
I do not waste my time with Christians who choose to stay: Blind, Deaf, and Dumb when it comes to Eloah's Dabar.
I do not post to these UA-cam videos or any other venues very often, for the most part they are waste of Eloah's time. All of you Christians (Eloah's errant people) are going to get very rude awakening in the near future, right along with
Synagogue of Satan, i.e., Talmudist's, and all those who follow the False Messianic doctrine teachers.
Nabi Yahqob
@@TheBiblicalRoots - I have already presented a small amount of information why Christianity has no
biblical roots in some of my prior posts, your ears and eyes are shut and thus you do not see it.
Nabi Yahqob
I believe that Rob has both the spiritual and intellectual prowess to answer all of your questions and then some.
However, I don't believe that anything he could say would satisfy you. It is obvious that your questions are not questions that you really want answers too, but rather they are only asked as a statement of your beliefs.
Genuinely asking a question means genuinely wanting an answer. You ask believing that you already know the answer.
I think the higher road here for Rob is to not engage in a keyboard argument. And you would argue every one of his answers given.
My two cents. And if you don't like what Rob had to say, why are you here? Not to save souls, as nothing you said indicates any kind of caring for lost sheep.
Rob, you continue on teaching because you do make an impact on lives for the better.
Thank you
Pretty simple, but unacceptable if you want to hang your hat on an “unchangeable” set of commands for all time.
"An unchangeable set of commands" is logically incoherent within the same paradigm that states that "the law" (in which the commands originated) was "added" and "until". This temporal and definitive language is incompatible with any assertion that "the law" is incumbant and obligatory retroactively and in perpetuity.
I'm currently working on a new biblical framework/lens that, so far, seems to offer a good amount of explanatory power to the conversation. I'll be very interested to see what you think of it, Drew.
@@theomegawerty9688 Hey, Theo. I'm not sure a monolithic view of the Law of God is appropriate. Certainly, we see at least _some_ of the commandments given in the Mosaic Law change under the New Covenant. For example, Christ's blood sacrifice "once for all" (Heb 10:10) fulfilled and completed the animal sacrifices required under Moses. Those are no longer required. And Christ, as our High Priest, being from the tribe of Judah, shows that the Levitical priesthood required under Moses has also come to an end. -Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots that’s a good project for sure. Did the same thing myself, and presented some of it in my “Christian approach to the Law” playlist.
@@TheBiblicalRoots Hello, I often hear that "they are no longer required" as a reason Yeshua fulfilled them so "we don't have to." My question is this: Do we understand that the reason they are not offered today is because there is no temple to do so and not that Messiah completed that ergo its abolished.(think Tripartite division)
Second, being from the tribe of Judah has nothing to do with the offerings from the tribe of Levi, so not really sure I would understand your second thought there. Maybe I misunderstood?
With that being said, I do affirm that this gap without a king or temple is prophesied to happen in Hosea. However, depending on your view, we also have prophecy of a return to the Levitical system of atonement(not forgiveness, but rather just atonement) in Ezekiel. I would love to talk about this with you. I hope my answers help to blend the difference between mainstream Christians and HRM.
I only believe in Nazarene Judaism.
I was with you until you said the Torah has not ended. That was the main reason for Jesus to come was to end Torah observance. The new covenant took place over the Torah, making it of no more effective. 😊
Hi Shelly! I think this is an issue of terminology. The Torah is the first five books of the Bible: Genesis to Deuteronomy. And those books have not ended, they are still very much part of the Christian Bible. What Jesus ended (by fulfilling it) is the Law of Moses.Blessings, Rob
Torah is perfect. Proverbs 4 2 Torah is good for doctrine God is going to send people to hell for obeying him
Hopefully that was a typo, Elijah! You said, "God is going to send people to hell for obeying him"?
As a jew:
Hashem covenant with Am Israel us is everlasting:
Genesis 17
7. I will establish my covenant(N) as an everlasting covenant(O) between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God(P) and the God of your descendants after you.
The new covenant will be established in the end of days, and the old covenant will remain, thus never breaking, rather continuing, until all the people of israel including the 10 tribes will return to the land of israel (Jeremiah 31: 7) when the true messiah will come, and the knowledge of god will be worldy spread (Jeremiah 31: 30).
As for christians, if they only regard JC as messiah (which is permitted) do not worship him as devine and follow the 7 commandments of sons of Noah, then they obey the word of God. Christians do not have to uphold all commandments that were given to the jews.