Thank you for this clarification. This will be in two parts...
Wait up.....you hang on to neither? How is that possible? You call yourself a Messianic Israelite.....so how does that differ from other Messianic Jews?
Then you go on to say.....
It is true that Jesus was "a Torah observant Jew" and he was under the 'old covenant' all the days of his human life....BUT he instituted the "new covenant" on the night before he died. His disciples were therefore freed from compliance with the Law with the shedding of his blood. The Law ended right there...nailed to the execution stake with Jesus. (Colossians 2:14) The Law ended because Jesus had fulfilled it as he said. (Matthew 5:17)
His Emphasised Bible was published in 1897, whereas his Studies in the Psalms were not published until 1911, after he had died. In this latter work Rotherham returned to the use of “Jehovah,” which is all the more remarkable in view of how strongly he objected to the form “Jehovah” in the introduction to his Emphasised Bible. In explanation of his reasons for returning to the form “Jehovah,” he says in the introduction to his Studies:
“Jehovah—The employment of this English form of the Memorial name [Exo. 3:18] in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being Yahweh; but solely from practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended. . . . As the chief evidence of the significance of the name consists not nearly so much in its pronunciation as in the completeness with which it meets all requirements—especially as explaining how the Memorial name was fitted to become such, and to be the preeminent covenant name that it confessedly is, it has been thought desirable to fall back on the form of the name more familiar (while perfectly acceptable) to the general Bible-reading public.”
We agree with him.
It is not only Paul's writings that make clear that the Law for Christians was not binding. He was just the one who said it very clearly. Jesus said he had come to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it.....so the principles upon which the laws were based, remained.
The Law fulfilled its purpose....and once Jesus came and gave his life, it was no longer necessary, especially since the majority who embraced the message would be Gentiles. There was no necessity for them to keep the Law.
Wait up.....you hang on to neither? How is that possible? You call yourself a Messianic Israelite.....so how does that differ from other Messianic Jews?
Then you go on to say.....
I am really confused now.....You say that you don't hang on to Judaism but then tell us that you keep the holy days, dietary laws and festivals of the Jews. Isn't that a contradiction?
It is true that Jesus was "a Torah observant Jew" and he was under the 'old covenant' all the days of his human life....BUT he instituted the "new covenant" on the night before he died. His disciples were therefore freed from compliance with the Law with the shedding of his blood. The Law ended right there...nailed to the execution stake with Jesus. (Colossians 2:14) The Law ended because Jesus had fulfilled it as he said. (Matthew 5:17)
English Bible scholar J. B. Rotherham had something to say on this subject. Especially is this of interest in view of the fact that he might be said to have been one of the pioneers in using the form “Yahweh” in transliterating the Tetragrammaton.
His Emphasised Bible was published in 1897, whereas his Studies in the Psalms were not published until 1911, after he had died. In this latter work Rotherham returned to the use of “Jehovah,” which is all the more remarkable in view of how strongly he objected to the form “Jehovah” in the introduction to his Emphasised Bible. In explanation of his reasons for returning to the form “Jehovah,” he says in the introduction to his Studies:
“Jehovah—The employment of this English form of the Memorial name [Exo. 3:18] in the present version of the Psalter does not arise from any misgiving as to the more correct pronunciation, as being Yahweh; but solely from practical evidence personally selected of the desirability of keeping in touch with the public ear and eye in a matter of this kind, in which the principal thing is the easy recognition of the Divine name intended. . . . As the chief evidence of the significance of the name consists not nearly so much in its pronunciation as in the completeness with which it meets all requirements—especially as explaining how the Memorial name was fitted to become such, and to be the preeminent covenant name that it confessedly is, it has been thought desirable to fall back on the form of the name more familiar (while perfectly acceptable) to the general Bible-reading public.”
We agree with him.
It is not only Paul's writings that make clear that the Law for Christians was not binding. He was just the one who said it very clearly. Jesus said he had come to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it.....so the principles upon which the laws were based, remained.
The Law fulfilled its purpose....and once Jesus came and gave his life, it was no longer necessary, especially since the majority who embraced the message would be Gentiles. There was no necessity for them to keep the Law.
