Nazarene Space

>I would be most interested in someones perspective on the following;  Acts 10:11-16,  Acts 15:1-22, 

>Romans 10:1-13,  Galations 3:23-29 and finally Galations 5:1-7

 

I will cover each below

Views: 176

Comment by James Trimm on October 21, 2011 at 10:28pm

From my Hebraic Roots Commentary to Acts at

http://nazarenespace.com/page/books-dvds

(Hebrew fonts came out in the pasted post as gibberish)

 

10:11  and a kind of garment being held by four corners,

and it was like a great linen cloth,  The implication is that the garment was a tallit (prayer shawl) being lowered by the tzitzit on the four corners (Numbers 15:37-41).

 

10:12  And there were in it, all four-footed animals, and creeping things of the earth, and birds of heaven.  Later we are told that these animals represent the three Gentiles who came to see Kefa (Acts 11:5-12).  In 1Enoch 85-90 these very animals are used to represent various groups of Gentiles. 

 

10:13 arise, kill and eat – Kefa was not being unstructed to arise kill and eat the animals mentioned in verse 12.  First of all this was not real, it was a vision.  Secondly we know from Acts 11:5-12 that the Animals represented Gentiles.  Kefa was not being told to kill the Gentiles.  Instead he was being instructed to greet them as guests by arisng, killing an animal and eating (see for example Gen. 18:1-8 when Avrham greeted three men as guests).

 

10:14 I have never eaten anything that is defiled (bysm) or unclean ()m+) – The two words here in the Aramaic have different shades of meaning.  bysm or as it appears in the dialect of the Jerusalem Talmud b)sm is used in the phrase b)sm )(r)  “defiled land” referring to land outside of Israel, the land of the Gentiles (Y.Kil, IX, 32c).  Whereas )m+ refers to that which is unclean, such as unkosher food.

 

10:15  That which Eloah has cleansed do not regard as defiled.   Only the word “defiled” is repeated in this verse (see the previous verse).  The voice does not say not to call food unclean, but not to call that which the food represents (Gentiles) “defiled” (see comments to verses 12, 12 and 14).
Comment by James Trimm on October 21, 2011 at 10:30pm

From my Hebraic Roots Commentary to Acts at

http://nazarenespace.com/page/books-dvds

 

15:1  And men came down from Y'hudah and were teaching the brothers, Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of the Torah, you are not able to have Life [eternal].  In Acts 15 we have a halachic issue being settled by the Rosh Beit Din.  In order to understand the proceedings of that meeting and its ruling we must know what the issue was that was before it. In this case Paul's position is not clearly spelled out in the pashat only his opponents' position is clearly spelled out in the pashat.

 

Pauls opponents' position is:

 

"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of the Torah,

you are not able to have life [eternal]."

 

Now we must ask ourselves: "What are the implications or ramifications of this position?"

 

We have a good model to work from. A similar position is held today by a group called the "Church of Christ" also known as "Campbelites". These teach that a person mut be baptised in order to be saved. This has resulted in adebate between them and other protestants (especially Baptists). The Baptists often pose the situation of a man who beccomes a believer while accross the street from a Church of Christ Church. He immediately runs accross the street to get baptised and is hit by a truck and killed. the baptists point out that this man according to the Church of Christ position would not be saved. Many Church of Christ evangelists run around with keys to their church so that at any time they can go get that baptism immediately, perchance the person dies before an more opertune time comes.

 

This would also be the mindset of Paul's opponents of Acts 15:1. They would believe that that person should become circumcised immedtiately upon becoming a believer perchance they die before doing so.

 

The more traditional view in Judaism differs. The more traditional view is that since circumcision and immersion mark the point at which a person becomes a Jew, that they must learn the Torah first. This is becaue if they are circumcised and become a Jew before learning the 613 commandments of the Torah then they will immediately be violating commandments that they do not know, bringing judgement down upon our whole people (Deut. 28-29 & lev. 26) . The traditional Jewish approach is therefore to teach the new believer the Torah first.

 

Now we can see from the remez what Paul's position is. The opponents are teaching that a person must be circumcised immediatly to be saved and then taught the Torah. Paul was teaching that they should first learn the Torah.

 

15:2 And Paul and Bar Nabba had much strife and dispute with them. And it happened that they sent up Paul and Bar Nabba, and others with them, to the emissaries and elders who were in Yerushalayim, because of this dispute.  So they took the matter to the beit din.

 

15:3  And the assembly escorted [and] sent them. And they were traveling in all of Phoenicia and also among the Samaritans, while recounting concerning the conversion of the Goyim, and causing great joy to all the brothers.  Notice that Paul has been converting Gentiles !?!?!?!

 

15:4  And when they came to Yerushalayim, they were received by the assembly, and by the emissaries, and by the elders: and they recounted to them all that Eloah had done with them.

15:5 And men stood up, those from the teaching of the P’rushim who had believed, and were saying, It is necessary for you to circumcise them, and, you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe. 

 

Here the opponents argument is only abreviated. Here it is stated as:

 

It is necessary for you to circumcise them

and you should command them to observe the Tor

Comment by James Trimm on October 21, 2011 at 10:31pm

15:4  And when they came to Yerushalayim, they were received by the assembly, and by the emissaries, and by the elders: and they recounted to them all that Eloah had done with them.

15:5 And men stood up, those from the teaching of the P’rushim who had believed, and were saying, It is necessary for you to circumcise them, and, you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe. 

 

Here the opponents argument is only abreviated. Here it is stated as:

 

It is necessary for you to circumcise them

and you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe.

 

Why does it say this? This on the surface does not even look like the same argument they were making in Acst 15:1. However if we recall our remez it makes perfect sense. This is a statement of chronology:

 

[first] It is necessary for you to circumcise them and [second] you should command them to observe the Torah of Moshe.

 

Now we can see that they are still making the same argument as in 15:1.

 

15:6 And the emissaries and elders were gathered to look into this matter.

15:7 And when there had been much debate, Shim’on stood up and said to them, Men, our brothers, you know that from the first days from my mouth, Eloah chose that the Goyim should hear the Word of the Good News and Trust.

15:8 And Eloah, who knows what is in hearts, gave testimony concerning them, and gave to them the Ruach HaKodesh as [he did] to us.

15:9 And he made no distinction1264 between them and us, because he purified their hearts by trust.

 

Kefa presents the case in the traditional role of the Av Beit-Din.  Kefa addresses the opponant's position as fully stated in Acts 15:1. He points to evidence (from Acts 10-11) that salvation preceeds circumcision.  There is a word play here in the Aramaic. The word for "distinction" here is P'RASH which is related to P'RUSHA (Heb: PARUSH) "Pharisee" (from verse 5)

 

15: 10 And now, why do you tempt Eloah so that you place a yoke upon the necks of the talmidim, which neither our fathers, nor we, were able to bear?

15: 11 But by the favor of our Adon Yeshua the Messiah, we believe to have Life, like them.

 

The "yoke" her in context is NOT the Torah (although often the Torah is likened to a yoke). The context here is clear. Kefa is calling the argument of Paul' opponants a "yoke". Thus the "Yoke" in this passage involves earning salvation by works such as circumcision.

 

Kefa appeals to the patriarchs as an example. Abraham for example was saved by trust first in Gen. 15:6 and was circumcised LATER in Gen. 17.

 

Now Kefa has given two case examples:

 

1. Cornelius and his house (Acts 10-11)

 

2. The patriarch (especially Abraham) (Gen. 15:6 & Gen. 17)

 

In both cases Kefa points out that salvation preceeded circumcision.  (although in at least one of them circumcision still came later).

 

15:12  And all the assembly was silent, and listened to Paul and Bar Nabba, who were recounting everything that Eloah had done by their hands: signs, and mighty deeds, among the Goyim.

 

This paralles verse 3 where Paul is recounting conversions. Paul is likening these cases to the two case examples that Kefa has presented.

 

15:13 And after they were quiet, Ya'akov stood up and said, Men, our brothers: hear me.

15:14 Shim’on recounted to you how Eloah began to choose, from the Goyim, a people for His Name.

15:15 And to this the words of the prophets agree, like that which is written:

15:16 After these things I will return and set up the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild that which has fallen of it and I will raise it up,

15:17 So that the remnant of men might seek YHWH, and, all

Comment by James Trimm on October 21, 2011 at 10:32pm

15:17 So that the remnant of men might seek YHWH, and, all the Goyim, on whom My Name is called, says YHWH who made all these things.

15:18 The works of Eloah are known from old.

15:19  Because of this I say, They should not trouble those, who from the Goyim, have turned toward Eloah.

15:20 But let it be sent to them, that they should separate [themselves] from the uncleanness of that which is sacrificed [to idols], and from sexual immorality, and from that which is strangled, and from blood.

15: 21 For Moshe, from the first generations, had proclaimers in every city; in the synagogues, who read him on every Sabbath.

 

Now there is a Pharisaic tradition recorded in the Mishna tractate Sanhedrin which deals with which “apostate doctrines” were worthy of disfellowshipment. The Mishna passage in question reads:


All Israelites have a share in the world to come…
And these are the ones who have no part in the World to Come:
He who says, the resurrection of the dead is a teaching which is not derived from the Torah…
(m.San. 10:1)


The Talmud is made up the Mishna and the Gemara. In the Talmud a passage of Mishna is followed by commentary known as Gemara. In the Talmud the Gemara to m.Sanhedrin 10:1 begins at b.Sanhedrin 90a and runs through b.Sanhedrin 99a.

At around b.Sanhedrin 97a this section of Gemara transitions from a discussion of the doctrine of the resurrection (in 90a-96b) to a discussion on the timing of the coming of Messiah (in 97a-99a). This is not just a random shift, but a logical transition.

The transition point of this Gemara reads as follows:


Rabbi Nahman said to Rabbi Isaac: “Have you heard when Bar Nafle will come?”
“Who is Bar Nafle?”, he asked.
“Messiah,” he answered,
“Do you call Messiah Bar Nafle?”
“Even so,” he rejoined, “As it is written: “In that day, I will raise up the tabernacle of David ha-nofelet [that is fallen]. (Amos 9:11)”
(b.San 97a)


This Gemara defines “David” in this passage to refer to the Davidic Messiah and the “tabernacle” to refer to his physical body. Since the context of this Gemara is that of the resurrection, “raise up” in this context most certainly refers to “resurrection” This is very profound, because we have in this Gemara a reference to a “resurrection” of the physical body of Messiah being seen in Amos 9:11.

There is also evidence that this understanding of the “Tabernacle of David” in Amos 9:11-12 as being a reference to the Messiah existed by the first century. A document found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in cave 4 gives the following commentary in Amos 9:11:


“I shall raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen” (Amos 9:11).  This passage describes the fallen Branch of David,
whom He shall raise up to deliver Israel.
(Q174 III, 12-13)


This is the reason that Ya’akov cites the verse in Acts 15:16 as having an application not only in the Millennial Kingdom, but in the very time period of the Acts 15 council. Ya’akov was well aware that the “Tabernacle of David” was a reference to the body of the Messiah, and that its being “raised up” was understood as a prophecy of a resurrection of the Messiah after he had “fallen” (died).

 

(see comments to Acts 23:6)

 

A fuller version of the ruling is given below where veres 20 is expanded so I will comment upon it there.

 

However it is significant that Ya'akov presumes that these gentiles will be hearing [the Torah] of Moshe proclaimed in the synagogues on Shabbat.

 

Ya'akov seems to say here that the gentiles would need to maintain a minimum standard of purity and learn the Torah BEFORE becoming circumcised. Remember the issue being heard involves chronology of three things:

 

1. Becoming circumcised

2. Obtai

Comment by James Trimm on October 21, 2011 at 10:33pm

1. Becoming circumcised

2. Obtaining salvation/eternal life

3. Instruction in the Torah of Moshe

 

The above chronology is that of Paul's opponents. The beit din is determining if this is true or if another chronology should be followed, namely:

 

1. Obtaining salvation/eternal life

2. Instruction in the Torah of Moshe

3. Becoming circumcised

 

Paul's opponents placed circumcision first in the chronlogy, while Paul placed it last.

 

The beit-din agrees with Paul.

Comment by James Trimm on October 21, 2011 at 10:35pm
Comment by James Trimm on October 21, 2011 at 10:36pm

Galations 3:23-29 and finally Galations 5:1-7


See my Online Commentary to Galatians at:

 

http://nazarenespace.com/forum/topics/line-by-line-through-galatians

Comment by Craig Peter Farrow on October 22, 2011 at 9:45am
Thank you James, it may take some time to digest all of this but I will reply in due course.
Comment by Stephen O. Navarro on October 22, 2011 at 9:46pm

Brother, I apologize for taking so long but I didn't know how to answer your questions on this site, but here it my reply that I put together days ago.

 

My Understanding of ACTS 10:11-16: Peters Dream. A common and frequently asked and discussed subject. Although many are obviously interested and concerned about a response that seems to challenge Gods Statutes they don’t seem to read past verse 15, instead running amuck with a belief that they can ignore Gods Menu. Why? The answer is clearly stated through verse 28.

 

[17] Three men sent from Cornelius, inquiring of Simon Peter’s house, calling Simon

Peter. [19-20] The Ruach HaKodesh said unto him, “Behold, three men seek thee.

Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have

sent them. Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of

good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel

to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.”

 

Peter went with them the next day, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied them. The day after they entered Caesarea Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends. [25] Peter went in speaking with Cornelius and finding many others gathered. [28] Peter said to them, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

 

Your answer, ‘don’t call anyone UNCLEAN’, having nothing whatsoever to do with food. Again, God expressing the unity that His People should have, as you’ve already read in ACTS 15:7-9. Romans 11:17 expresses The Spiritual Olive Tree example where we are all partakers of the same root, and previously written in Numbers 15:15 ‘One God, One Law, One People, for ever!’

 

 

 

My Understanding of ACTS 15:1-22: Men from Judea taught circumcision was a must to be accepted by God. Paul & Barnabas met with the disciples, James and elders to dispute this issue in regards to the gentiles. They met and disputed this issue in Jerusalem, later called The Jerusalem Council. There were Pharisees there which also agreed with the circumcision rule. Peter now spoke up delivering Gods Will that he, Peter, should preach that gentiles be equal in the Eyes of God. [10] Peter said, “Why then are you people making this issue so hard to understand?” Now Barnabas and Paul were allowed to speak: declaring miracles God had performed on the gentiles. James, quoting Gods Words, told them of Gods intent to unify His People when He came, for He only has One People. [Numbers 15:15] So now that they have the ‘Faith Seed’, that is, that they believe in God, they should obey 4 critical statutes of God before entering His House of Worship, the synagogue, every Sabbath, to hear & learn Gods Preached Word.

Summarizing: This was a dispute between the Jewish and Non-Jewish People over Gods Law. Where the Jewish Scholars mandated circumcision, interpreted as conversion to Judaism, expecting newcombers to know & do what took them their entire lives to learn. In opposition; Paul and the others claimed that it should be Faith in God be the first step. Secondly, obstain from the famous four things that God finds detestable, enabling them to be presentable and acceptable to God. Finally, come to synagogue every Sabbath, as all of Gods People must do, and learn of the rest of what The Master has prepared for us to learn.

 

 

 

My Understanding of Romans 10:1-12: I see James

Comment by Stephen O. Navarro on October 22, 2011 at 9:50pm

My Understanding of Romans 10:1-12: I see James 2:26 saying in one verse what is described in 12 verses here, ‘faith without works / works without faith are DEAD!’ If the comment in verse 4 saying, “Christ is the end of the law”, is a stumbling block or point to be discussed please be aware that there are many such verses, I believe, God has allowed that our ‘itching ears’ would/could go astray with, if we’re unstable/uninstructed in Torah.

 

For example: as you read in ‘The Church vs. God’ the word ‘fulfill’ in Matthew 5:17 does not follow dictionary terms, meaning ‘it has ended’. That just wouldn’t make any sense. Fulfill is described in ACTS 3:18 that God would do and say exactly what His Prophets said He would in the Tenakh, ‘fulfilled’.

 

Another: Mark 15:25 “And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him.” I have found some Biblically knowledgeable persons believing that this means that He Died at the biblical third hour = 9am. That’s obviously wrong. Two other Talmidim, Disciples, describes the 6th through the 9th hours the sky was darkened, interpreted as His Father was saddened/upset, then dying at the 9th hour.

 

Yochanan, John, the only Talmidim actually there describes Messiah still being in The Judgment Hall at the 6th hour at which time the chief priests were demanding He be Crucified and finally Emperor Pilate relinquished and said ‘I FIND NO FAULT IN HIM’, obedient to Exodus 12:6, that all Israel will slaughter the unblemished Pesach Lamb.

 

Yet another way to understand that ‘the end of the law’ does not mean the LAW is finished would be, “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1 Timothy 1:8-10   I guess that means all of us, mankind, until He returns and changes us!

 

Then again, The Book of Leviticus is referred to as The Law. The Law is called The Word of God. The Book of John opens up with He being The Word. Revelation completes this with ‘He that comes on the white horse will be called The Word of God. God finished, ended? God Forbid!

 

 

 

My Understanding of Galatians 3:23-29: Yes we’ve heard ‘under the law’ and ‘not under the law’. I believe anyone who loves God and has comprehended just a little of His Intent would not buy into thinking this meant ‘not having to follow and obey His Law’. My reading has me believing the proper phrase is ‘not under the penalty of the law’, which means with your request for forgiveness He is just to forgive you. However, there is no remission of sins for WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE. Sunday Worship, for one, ignoring The Sabbath, is willful disobedience!

 

I have found the persons who frequent this comment believe the 4th Commandment of God is NOT for them, for the Jews Only. The same holds true with CLEAN/UNCLEAN, and Gods Feast Days. I won’t give rebuttal to that for Gods Commandments are obvious and truth. Making up days that we should observe while ignoring His Feasts, and more, are just obvious & blasphemous where condemnation is clearly evident.

 

 

 

My Understanding of Galatians 5:1-7: A simple comment. Paul, the writer of 13 Epistles, Galatians being one, writing to those whom he believed would understand his mes

Comment

You need to be a member of Nazarene Space to add comments!

Join Nazarene Space

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service