Monday, 29 February 2016


I don't think the first day of the week is the new sabbath.

I think it's okay for a church to form a habit of gathering on the first day of the week (like the church at Ephesus did).

Or the church could meet on any day and everyday (like the church at Jerusalem did).

The Jewish Sabbath was always the seventh day (beginning when Moses gave the Law).

But God's rest which He entered into on the seventh day, was a permanent state of rest - not a weekly cycle of work/rest.

There's no record that the patriarchs religiously observed a weekly sabbath prior to the giving of the Law.

The law of the sabbath was given after man fell, to the Jews - and served as a weekly reminder that mankind had fallen from God's rest and needed a sanctifier.

It was observed weekly, because the weekly sabbath itself had no power to actually bring mankind into that rest. It could only show man his need of it, and foreshadow it.

That true rest was brought to us by Jesus. Someone who has entered into it has permanently ceased from his own work (striving under the Law) - like God permanently ceased from His.

Since Jesus has given us the true rest, and sanctified and made us perfect forever, we no longer need the weekly reminder of our need.

Since we have the substance, we no longer need the shadow.

The shadow is fulfilled in us - in our daily, permanent, living experience.

Sunday didn't replace it - JESUS is it! And we are in Him.

So in the New Covenant no one day is more important than another. But if someone's faith and conscience still makes him feel obligated, then it's okay for someone to feel that he should honour one day above another. Live and let live, said Paul.

But here's the important thing: how well do you know the One who declared Himself to be greater than the sabbath? Truly knowing Him for Who He is, is the wellspring of eternal life, rest, wisdom and understanding.

He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.

Saturday, 20 February 2016

All Israel

I'm not sure about that outlook.

Jesus said the Gospel would be preached to all nations and then the end will come.

Not, and then the Tribulation will come;

nor, and then His program for Israel will begin;

But, and then the end will come.

The Gospel was to the Jew first, and also to the Greek - not, to all nations, and then once again to the Jews last.

But, to the Jews first and also to the Greek, Paul said.

Not to the Jews first and then to the Greek, as if it momentarily stopped being for Jews once it went to the Gentiles,

But to the Jews first and also to the Greek - once it went to the Gentiles, it would be for Gentiles and Jews simultaneously.

Once Gentiles started getting saved, it didn't mean God had momentarily finished with Jews. Far from it, for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Rather, God used Gentiles to provoke more Jews to faith. That was the scenario which fulfilled Bible-Prophecy, Paul asserted.

"And so all Israel shall be saved", he summarised the scheme.

Not, "and then all Israel shall be saved",

But, "and so (in this manner, with this outcome, the prophecy is seeing its outworking which said) all Israel shall be saved".

So the Old Testament prophecies hadn't literally meant all Israel - but believers - first Jews and also Gentiles.

And Paul also said how long that scheme would last for (the scheme he'd just fished describing, in which both Gentiles and Jews continue getting saved simultaneously) - it would last until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. In other words, until the end.

Rehearsels Over

The high sabbaths were 'rehearsels' only until JESUS came - because He is the real thing. 

Once the real, live Act was performed, rehearsing of course ceased. 

Jesus brought us everything which the sabbaths merely foreshadowed.

He brought the reality to us in the Person of Himself - and through what He accomplished for us by the cross. 

All things rehearsed were enacted fully to, for, in, by, and from Him.

In fact He is not merely the Act which the rehearsals had previewed - He's the Play itself!

Even though in our human experience there is still a 'not-yet' aspect to all that Jesus brought to us (such as the resurrection, judgment, end of the world and eternal kingdom which are still future, at His Second Coming) still there has come an 'already' aspect to all things - in and through Jesus.

(We shall be saved - we are saved, in Him;

The devil shall be judged - the prince of this world is judged already;

The hour is coming, and now is, when all who are in the graves shall hear His voice...

We shall be raised - we are raised with Him;

The Kingdom is reserved for us in heaven - we are seated together with Him in heavenly places in Christ;

The end is coming - yet Christ was crucified 'in the end of the world';

He will make all things new - yet if any man be in Christ he is a new creature;

Kingdom Now/Not Yet.)

Even though we look forward in hope, we are saved already in Jesus.

So we look forward, but with a sense of already having (in Jesus) - knowing it's already been accomplished - not like the weekly rehearsals of the Law.

In Christ - the New Covenant - Who came, and Who is now in us - unlike under the Law - we already have the substance of the shadow; the presence of the future; the Kingdom; the glory; eternal life.

Although we still hope, faith now is the substance of what we hope for. Not continually carrying-out the 'rehearsals' of the Law - but faith. Rehearsals look forward - faith has, even though faith still hopes because it doesn't yet see.

Rehearsals were not the real thing - but faith has the real thing, even though it waits in hope.

Jesus is the Firstfruits - a kind of realised eschatology - and us in Him and Him in us.

So the truly Messianic life is a whole new life - it needn't consist in carrying-out the shadows - because we already are blessed with all the spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus which the sabbaths could only foreshadow in an earthly ('rehearsal') type way.

We won't need to carry-out sabbaths in the future eternal state, because we will have entered into the realities - and on the inside we already have the reality now - in Jesus! 


Wednesday, 17 February 2016

New Covenant

The Law was indivisible. And literal. He said so. And He followed it - all of it, literally - or else it couldn't truly be said that He followed it at all. And He rebuked the Jewish leaders for dividing the Law by their tampering approach.

Prior to His death He also limited His ministry strictly to Jews. When He sent out the 12 and then the 70, His commission for them also excluded Gentiles.

But He also said:

That a dispensation was coming when true worshipers would no longer worship in Jerusalem as was required by the Law;

"A new commandment I give unto you";

"This cup is the new testament in my blood";

"It is finished";

and many similar statements which show a different ball-game to the Law.

Prior to His death He said He had many things still to tell His disciples, but they were not able to bear them yet. (It was only after His resurrection that they understood even why He had to die, for example.)

So after His resurrection He spoke to them concerning the Kingdom of God. That included giving them a new commission - a commission involving all nations, unlike prior to His death when the ministry was still strictly for Jews because the Old Covenant was technically still in force.

Teaching all nations "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" takes into consideration the ultimate purpose of everything Jesus said and did: because by that time the Apostles understood the bigger picture.

"All things whatsoever I have commanded you," didn't only look through a narrower window only to some things He indeed said and did prior to His death - it embraced His ultimate program - especially seeing it had been His stated intention even prior to His death to introduce something new and broader after His death.

Jesus' ultimate and bigger purpose was stated by Him on both sides of the cross.

And all of that was achieved without Him breaking a single point of the Law, while the Law was still literally applicable.

Jesus Predicted a Change of the Law

The Law was indivisible. And literal. He said so. And He followed it - all of it, literally - or else it couldn't truly be said that He followed it at all. And He rebuked the Jewish leaders for tampering with the Law by their approach.

Prior to His death He also limited His ministry strictly to Jews. When He sent out the 12 and then the 70, His commission for them was also excluded Gentiles.

But He also said:

That a dispensation was coming when true worshipers would no longer worship in Jerusalem, as was required by the Law;

"A new commandment I give unto you";

"This cup is the new testament in my blood";

"It is finished";

and many similar statements which show a different ball-game to the Law.

Prior to His death He said He had many things still to tell His disciples, but they were not able to bear them yet. (It was only after His resurrection that they understood even why He had to die, for example.)

So after His resurrection He spoke to them concerning the Kingdom of God. That included giving them a new commission - a commission involving all nations, unlike prior to His death when the ministry was still strictly for Jews because the Old Covenant was technically still in force.

Teaching all nations "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" takes into consideration the ultimate purpose of everything Jesus said and did: because by that time the Apostles understood the bigger picture.

"All things whatsoever I have commanded you," didn't look through a narrower window only at some things He indeed said and did prior to His death - especially seeing it had been His stated intention even prior to His death to introduce something new and broader after His death.

Monday, 15 February 2016

Old and New Covenants

The Old Covenant included a sunset clause, by prophesying a New Covenant. 

To continue keeping the Old Covenant instead of the New once the New Covenant was made, would have been to breach the sunset clause in the Old Covenant itself.

To continue keeping the Old Covenant at the same time as keeping the New Covenant would also have been unlawful, because there can't be two covenants at the same time. 

Therefore the only way to stay compliant with the Old Covenant once the New Covenant came, was to start keeping the New Covenant instead of the Old. By embracing the New instead of the Old, early believers were truly carrying-out the intent of the Old.

And then within that generation, the time came when it became impossible to keep the Old anymore, even if someone wished to. But the New is an eternal covenant.

Sunday, 14 February 2016

No Sabbaths in the New Earth

The Bible doesn't say we'll be keeping a weekly sabbath in the new earth.

Isaiah 66 described the preservation and restoration of Israel from captivity in Babylon, with the following assurance:

22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Then it described what would be carried out once back in their land, still in Old Covenant times:

23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

So it's not about our future!

JESUS came - and He brought the true rest.

But if you want to observe a weekly rest too, you can! But you don't have to - just sayin'!

Thursday, 11 February 2016

The Law Written on the Hearts

There is a law which existed with God before Moses' Law was given - otherwise there was no sin until Moses.  

Moses' Law later expressed that law in a way that God decided was appropriate to His purposes for Jews at that time. 

The nations didn't have Moses' Law, but that didn't mean they didn't already have the law written on their hearts - and so we all needed a Saviour, even those who didn't have Moses' Law.

Christ fulfilled the law by fulfilling Moses' Law; and through His death, burial and resurrection on the third day brought us grace - as prophesied in Moses' writings. The new creation now fulfils the law - which had been the objective of Moses' Law anyway. 

We truly fulfil the same objective which Moses' Law could only foreshadow - but that's not to say we must literally carry-out Moses' Law (as the composite-unit, the complete system that it was, in all its precise details, as if the system now applies directly to us literally unequivocally).

And there you have the Gospel.



Not a great term, because it implies that a person's substance is in Judaism while the 'Messianic-’ part is just his personal flavour of Judaism, like a topping to pour on top. 

Messiah isn't an add-in flavour - He's not even just the main thing - He is EVERYTHING! And when you've got Him, you don't need anything else. In fact, having anything else spoils it. 

The '-Judaism' part is also problematic in itself - because modern Judaism isn't the same thing as the Torah. Not only is there very little resemblance, but the Torah if it was still in force, would actually outlaw modern Judaism altogether.


Also not a great term, because ALL believers are Messianic - believe in the Messiah - Christ Jesus. That's what a Christian is! 

What distinguishes some Christians therefore is not that they believe in Messiah (because all Christians do) - it's that some have tried to become religiously Jewish as well.

But trying to become religiously Jewish is problematic in itself - because it's not possible for Moses' religious system to be followed anymore. Modern Judaism therefore isn't just a poor substitute for Moses' system - Moses' system if it was still in force today, would actually outlaw modern Judaism.

So the more fitting term to use, if you wish to use one at all - and the only appropriate lifestyle to live - is simply that of 'CHRISTIAN' - which also happens to be the term mentioned in the New Testament, and the lifestyle taught in the New Testament.

CHRISTIAN. Not Judaism. Obviously not Moses' religious system. Just Christian.

It means to live your life as though it's all about JESUS.


JESUS + nothing = everything!

Married to Christ


Some say it co-exists with the Old Covenant.

Others say it's really only a renewal of the Old.

But really it replaces the Old.

Have you ever witnessed a wedding-vows renewal ceremony?

It looks like a wedding, but it's not a real wedding contract. It can't be - a couple can't have two marriage contracts! They can only ever have one.

You hear them repeat their wedding vows, but it doesn't quite feel like a wedding - because a mere renewal of vows isn't really a contract at all. It's nowhere near as important as the wedding contract. Not even close!

It feels kinda cute of course - it's touching to see their love for each other - but legally it's not necessary. It has no legal import. 

In fact sometimes you could even think that renewing wedding vows somehow implies the couple might have been drifting apart! Nice - but it's just not the same on many levels.

Have you ever witnessed a second wedding? Say a person had tragically lost their spouse, and now God has wonderfully brought someone into her life again. 

That feels quite special! And it's a real contract! It's no less real than the woman's first marriage - because her first marriage legally ended. Tragically - but it ended. 

Her new marriage is a legal contract, and feels special - only because the first marriage was legally over. She can't have two marriage contracts at the same time.

To say the New Covenant is merely a renewal of the Old, is to make the New Covenant not a real Covenant at all.

Saying it's merely a renewal weakens its legal value, making it less potent than the Old which had been a real legal instrument. 

Really, that denigrates the work of Christ. Christ's own blood was merely a renewal, while the blood of bulls and goats was the real contract? Please! 

No, Christ didn't come just to renew an old Covenant - he brought a real, legal, NEW contract. 

Like a marriage, only ONE contract can exist at a time. If a spouse has died, a woman can  marry again. Paul said you have become dead to the Law, so you could become married to another - even Christ. The New Covenant is a legal contract because the first contract is over - otherwise it's not really a covenant at all.

Christ died for us - we also died with Him. He was crucified on the advice of the High Priest - but it was for us, for we had the sentence of death against us because of the Law of sin and death. 

In Christ we became dead to the Law so we could be married to another - JESUS. 

That's the New Covenant - it's of far more potency than a mere renewing of old vows. It's a legal contract - because the Old Covenant was brought to a legal end through death.

The Old Covenant - the Law - ended in death (for by the Law is the knowledge of sin) - and Christ was our substitute - and us in Him - but the New Covenant brought LIFE - eternal life - in JESUS! 

It's not a mere renewal. It doesn't co-exist with the Old. It's a whole NEW Covenant.

Praise God!

Wednesday, 10 February 2016

Israel and Gentiles both Raised Higher than Natural Israel

Can I presume that by Commenting again with that Link you're welcoming another response from me?

I totally agree Gentiles did not replace Israel. Couldn't agree more!

Israel's promises were not spiritualised and experienced instead by the Church.

But neither were Israel's promises postponed until a future time.

All of the Promises which Israel were custodians of, were fulfilled. That's the very claim of the GOSPEL.

I totally agree Gentiles were grafted into those promises WITHOUT replacing the natural branches (Jews).

Yes they were grafted into a New Covenant which God made WITH ISRAEL FIRST.

But the Gentiles weren't grafted into Judaism - they were grafted-in to GOD, by means of the New Covenant - not into the Old Covenant.

The Old Covenant wasn't potent to graft Gentiles in, because by its own terms it was mainly Jewish and in many points excluded Gentiles.

The purpose of the cross wasn't only to enable GENTILES to be grafted-in - the cross was necessary so JEWS also could inherit the Promise - because the Old Covenant was not potent to enable ANYONE not even Jews to inherit the Promise. We all needed something more.

The Promise had been given to Abraham before Israel was ever constituted as a nation - before Moses' Law was given to the nation. The Promise was for all nations - while Moses' Law (the Old Covenant) which came later was mainly only for Israel and was only temporary.

It was never God's intention to graft all nations into the Law - but it was God's intention that the Promise would be for ALL.

Both Israel and the Gentiles needed the cross - needed the New Covenant - before they could inherit the Promise, because of the Law's inability to deal with sin in the flesh.

"In thy seed (Christ) all families of the earth (without distinction) shall be blessed (justified)" Abraham was promised. Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see His day. Paul said God preached the Gospel ahead of time to Abraham. He foresaw the justification of the heathen through faith, without the Law. That's what the Promise was about!

The fact that the Promise was to be for all nations, pre-supposes that the Law (which came later) would be annulled - because the Law divided between Gentile and Jew - but the Promise made no distinction. The Promise was "in thy seed" - that is, simply in Christ.

The nation of Israel was only constituted a couple of generations after the Promise was given. They were given a Law which was never intended to have the same direct, literal, unequivocal relevance to Gentiles today. In that sense they were a stand-alone nation. They became the custodians of the Promise.

Besides that particular Promise which would be for all nations, Abraham was also given other promises concerning his natural descendants. The covenant of circumcision - which also came AFTER that Promise was spoken - was applicable to them - but not to Gentiles today. That Covenant was also later reiterated by the Law. But circumcision was not intended to continue to be a requirement for them either once the New Covenant would be made with them.

There was also a promise concerning the land. It was for Jews, not for Gentiles. But it too was conditional upon obedience.

Israel became the custodians of all of those Promises and Covenants - the first Promise was to be for all nations through JESUS - while other covenants which were given later were only for the Jews, and conditional upon obedience.

It basically meant Israel would have the privilege of being the first to receive JESUS - and the first to share Him, once the New Covenant came.

The Promise was to be obtained through FAITH - in Jesus - not through the Law. Gentiles were grafted into the same privilege that Jews had first - the privilege of inheriting that Promise. The Promise is salvation.

Jesus' three-and-a-half year ministry was indeed exclusively to the lost sheep of Israel - but His death on the cross - the New Covenant - the Blessing - would ultimately be for ALL NATIONS. Jesus' role was to introduce the New Covenant by fulfilling the Old Covenant - and then giving the Apostles a new, extended program for all nations.

So Israel after the flesh - and after the Law - is neither here nor there, with regard to the Promise. They were only custodians. Unworthy ones, often. The Law was only temporary. Even they themselves could miss out on the Promise, if they didn't believe - if they thought righteousness could be obtained through the Law.

Aside from Christ, Jews and Gentiles ended-up on a level playing field - convicted sinners, each in need of Jesus.

Gentile believers don't get grafted from one fallen nation into another - they got grafted into Christ - into God - into Abraham's main, first Promise - without the Law.

Tuesday, 9 February 2016

Keep the Law - Really?

The Law of Moses was a unit - a package deal. If a person ignored one point of the Law, then he wasn't keeping the Law.

No-one today can keep Moses' Law as the unit that it was - therefore in that sense no-one today is keeping Moses' Law.

The Holy Spirit leads us - but He doesn't lead us to obey Moses' Law as the package deal that it was. Because if He was, then we should be keeping every point of Moses' Law - but that's impossible today. Therefore we can say that the Holy Spirit is not leading us to keep Moses' Law.

But He does lead us in such a way that we fulfil all of the ethics which the Law foreshadowed. But that doesn't mean we must observe the Feasts, or that we will resume animal sacrifices at any time in the future.

The only verse mentioning a thousand year reign, mentions nothing at all about an altar, priesthood, sacrifices, temple, feasts, Jerusalem, Israel or Jews.

God's ultimate program for Israel was the Gospel - and still is.

The ABC of Israel in Prophecy

Bear with me for a moment:


God foretold long ago that  A, B, C & D would happen with regard to Israel.

Then A, B, C & D happened, just as He said.

Now today we might be seeing something that looks partly similar to 'A' happening, with regard to the modern State of Israel.

But that doesn't mean that what we're seeing happen today is the direct fulfilment of God's prediction to do 'A'. He already did 'A' - and when He did it, He did it exactly as written in all of its details, not just a part lookalike.

And it certainly doesn't mean we should expect to start seeing 'B' happen in future - because that isn't relevant anymore like it was relevant back when He did 'A'.

Rather, what we are seeing happen today, even though it may look partly similar to 'A', is really something that has only been possible because of the fact that A, B, C & D were already done long ago.

Therefore that doesn't mean we should start doing 'B'!

It means Jews need to realise 'C' already came. 'C' is not still-future for Israel.

It doesn't mean the Gospel is something else (like 'E' or something) while we wait for God to finally do A, B C & D for Israel. No - the Gospel IS the proclamation that 'C' indeed followed 'A' and 'B'. And 'D' also followed 'A', 'B' & 'C', exactly as predicted.


A = Israel regathered from captivity
B = resumed Temple worship
C = Christ
D = outcome (not all believed)

History has already seen the fulfilment of Bible-Prophecies about Israel's regathering from Babylon, about their resuming Temple worship thanks to Cyrus decree, about Christ then coming and ending the Old Covenant and bringing the New, and only a remnant believed - all precisely as foreseen.

So the fact we have seen many people in modern times doing Aliyah does not mean Bible-Prophecies about Israel's regathering (from Babylon) are only now seeing their fulfilment. Otherwise we should also see Mosaic worship restored; and it would mean Jesus came too early to be the Messiah.

No, God already fulfilled all that - and having fulfilled it, His goodwill towards Jews never changed, was never revoked. Therefore we are still able to see modern Israelis blessed in every way - in response to believing prayer.

Not to directly fulfil Bible-Prophecy - but because Bible-Prophecy has already been fulfilled.

So rest assured: it won't be necessary for you to mix modern Judaism with your faith.

Everything is actually now all about JESUS

Israel's Return and Prophecy

If events since 1989 are indeed the direct fulfilment of the Bible-Prophecy of which Isaiah 43:5-6 was part, then what relevance did details in the prophecy have such as:

Babylon, chariots and horsemen, Israel's reticence to offer animal sacrifices, the sanctuary, and Cyrus (who later decreed the reconstruction of Jerusalem's Temple hundreds of years before Christ)?

The prophecy reads instead like more of a prediction of Israel's regathering from decades of captivity scattered across Babylon's many provinces, rather than a description of 1989 and following.

The prophecy went on to mention that in that historical setting, Israel would be justified "in the Lord" - which was Christ. So if the fulfilment of the prophecy did not begin until 1989, then neither did that part of the prophecy - in which case Jesus was too early in history to be Israel's justifier!

Thus by asserting that the direct fulfilment of the prophecy is a contemporary event rather than a past event, we weaken the Christians' case for Jesus as Messiah.

It also implies that the carrying-out of Moses' ceremonial Law as mentioned in the prophecy must again be required in future.

But understanding it as past, establishes the case for Jesus - and also eliminates the need to look for a reinstitution of animal sacrifices in future.

Seeing it as past explains history. Locates Israel. Puts the focus on Jesus and the New Covenant.

Could it be then that the events of 1989 and following was not the direct fulfilment of the said Bible-prophecy, but was more the result of the character of God - which never changes?

Having already fulfilled Prophecy according to His own heart, God never subsequently revoked it explicitly. Israel still was beloved for the fathers' sakes. Therefore events such as those of 1989 and onwards were always going to be possible - in response to believing-prayer!

The difference being that unlike in the past when God fulfilled the said Prophecy, Moses' ceremonial Law and the sanctuary are NOT required now nor will they be in future. The  prophecy required those things in the fulfilment of the prophecy back then - but the focus now, seeing we are now on the other side of the prophecy's fulfilment, on the other side of Israel's regathering from Babylon's provinces, on the other side of Israel resuming Temple worship, on the other side of Messiah's coming to Israel, on the other side of His procuring justification for Israel, on the other side of His introducing the New Covenant - the focus now need involve no carrying-out of Old Covenant style worship but is instead squarely on JESUS - on the Gospel - on seeing individual Jews come to faith in Christ as also the Gentiles. Not on expecting a re-establishment of Old Covenant style worship in the land. And all of that without taking away any of God's goodwill towards the Jews and the land.

Good things are happening not so much to FULFIL the said prophecy - but because the prophecy, having already been FULFILLED was never revoked - therefore God's goodwill hasn't changed.

So the sky is the limit for modern Israelis - but on the basis of faith, and without needing to involve modern Judaism.

Could that be a faithful view of God, the Scripture, Jesus, the New Covenant, Israel and history?

It helps eliminate the misnotion that Christians should be observing a mixture of Judaism with their faith.

Monday, 8 February 2016

Born Again

'Born Again' isn't a church - it's an experience.

It isn't somewhere you go - it's something that can happen to you!

That's why even a Catholic can be born again!

No matter which church a person goes to, he must be born again.

Jesus said:

"Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

Has it happened to you yet? Have you been born again?

Being born again is not something a church can do for you.

It's not something any man can do for you.

It doesn't mean join this church or that church.

It doesn't mean water-baptism.

It isn't even something you can do for yourself.

Being born again is something only God can do for you!

How? Ask!

Say this:

"Dear Father, I believe you raised Jesus from the dead; I confess Jesus is Lord. I repent of my sin. I receive Jesus Christ right now as my personal Lord and Saviour. I receive your free gift of salvation in Jesus' Name right now. Give me your Holy Spirit. Thank you that from this moment on I am cleansed, I am your child, and I am saved - a brand new person in Christ Jesus! Amen."

Saturday, 6 February 2016

Limited Law v Worldwide Gospel

It's true that God has written a 'law' on the hearts of all human beings - but the Torah that was given to the descendants of Jacob cannot unequivocally be for all people for all time, despite having been given to them in a wilderness.

For instance, the Passover had to be kept in Spring, in the month of Nisan - and it had to involve pilgrimages to the altar at Jerusalem  where genealogically verifiable descendants of Levi were serving as priests, to offer sacrifices.

It's never Spring in the month of Nisan in the Southern Hemisphere - so that means the Passover isn't for at least half the world.

As for the other half of the world, the altar no longer exists in Jerusalem, nor do the required genealogies - therefore the Passover cannot be kept according to the Torah in the Northern Hemisphere either.

And remember that according to the Bible, if a person reneged on a single detail of the Law, he was reneging on the whole Law. So keeping the Torah at all in this day and age is a logistic impossibility for anyone.

But even if it was logistically possible to keep the Feast today (which it isn't, but IF it was) it still wouldn't be necessary to do so - because the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and superseded by the New Covenant which Christ Jesus has already made.

There's still value however in knowing about the Passover and in fact about the whole Torah which was once required of Jacob's descendants (it can be valuable in a number of important ways) - but it's not directly, unequivocally, literally applicable to anyone anywhere any time any more. It was never meant to be!

But JESUS is!

And Jesus makes us live in such a way that no spiritual reality which the Torah could only model in shadow form, will ever be broken.

Moses and Jesus

Moses indeed wrote of Jesus.

Like in Genesis, Moses wrote how God promised Abraham that in his seed (not seeds, plural - but seed, singular which was Christ) all families of the earth (all nations, without distinction) would be blessed (saved, justified).

Jesus explained, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad".

That promise was given BEFORE the nation of Israel was ever constituted; before the Law was ever given to them; before the Old Covenant was made with them. Those things, which were only introduced afterwards, were neither here nor there as far as the Promise goes!

In fact, the Promise presupposes the removal of the Law, and the bringing-in of a New Covenant - because those things (the Law, and the Old Covenant) excluded the Gentiles, while the Promise was to be for ALL nations.

Yes Moses wrote about Jesus - and the Jews ought to have recognised that. But that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING Moses ever wrote was intended as a requirement for all people for all time. Of course not!

It didn't mean believing-Gentiles were to become Observant of Judaism - but it did mean even Moses is witness that the whole world is now meant to receive JESUS

Thursday, 4 February 2016


I'm not exactly sure if this answers your question.

But sometimes I think of this. It would be impossible to say God is love and God is righteous, if in eternity past there was a time before God ever had anyone to love and ever had anyone to treat righteously.

Also, if there is no Member of the Godhead Who exemplifies submission to God, then how can God Himself be our example of obedience. It would mean He is asking us to show a character-trait never before done within the Godhead.

If there is no plurality within the Godhead, then in eternity past it would not have been possible for God to enact love and righteousness. Those qualities would have existed merely in His own mind and heart - but He could not have enacted them. He would have merely been. Merely existed. But we couldn't say anything about His character or holiness or righteousness or love.

Actually we couldn't even be sure about anything God said. If there is no plurality within the Godhead, it would mean God could have done anything in eternity past - and there would be no witness of what He did and of what sort of character He was.

Every word is confirmed by two or three witnesses. So if there was no eternal witness within the Godhead, then God's own Word couldn't be confirmed. His own testimony about Himself couldn't be confirmed.

In order for His Word and character to be confirmed, He would have to rely on a created being to act as witness and confirm His character and truth. But that would make God insufficient as Truth within Himself.

It would mean that God's own testimony that He is love and that He has always been righteous could not be confirmed.

And what if that external witness became unreliable - it would mean God's Truth, Word, love and righteousness could no longer ever be really confirmed.

But the fact there is plurality within the Godhead, means God qualifies to confirm Himself. It confirms that He is God. Confirms He is Truth. Confirms His own testimony about Himself. Confirms His Word. It confirms His love and eternal righteousness. It makes He Himself our example, and confirms His right to expect obedience from us.

So I think it's brilliant that the Godhead consists of plurality.

I know the Old Testament says, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our Lord is One". But that can't contradict plurality within the Godhead, or else the Jews' own Scriptures contradicted themselves.

(Because in Genesis it says, ’Let US (plural) make man in OUR (plural) image...’.

In Psalms it says, 'My Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, til I make Thine enemies Thy footstool’.

In Daniel also it mentions one like unto the Son of Man appearing in the fire.

And Daniel saw One appearing before the Ancient of Days, receiving an eternal Kingdom.)

Those and other Old Testament verses express plurality within the Godhead.

So when it says the Lord our God is One - it doesn't deny plurality. It meant that God was not divided against Himself. (Unlike mythical pagan deities who were constantly at War with each other, jostling for the right to Supremacy.) And I'm sure there are other levels of meaning in it too. But there has always been the concept of plurality within the Godhead, though not always understood as clearly as Jesus explained it.

John said there are Three who bear record in heaven.

Jesus existed eternally with the Father.

The New Testament calls the Spirit the eternal Spirit. So each of the persons within the Godhead were eternally part of the Godhead. It means Jesus didn't only become the Son of God when He was born. He was always with God.

Within the Godhead, there is hierarchy in some sense. Because Jesus said, My Father is greater than I. Yet there is also a sense in which they are equal, because Paul said He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.  The equality comes because of their membership with each other. But the equality does not deny plurality.

Beautiful isn't it!

Wednesday, 3 February 2016


All this English transliteration of Hebrew words makes for tiresome reading. Why not just say it in English.

God Himself was the author of all languages at Babel - Hebrew itself doesn't have any special holiness of its own. And even if it does, then by that rule it would lose it anyway by writing it in English wouldn't it?

As for spelling God as 'G-d' - the Apostles, when writing their Epistles in a non-Hebrew language, used no similar expression. They just wrote 'God' (in Greek). 

Look, no matter how much you try to venerate the unchanging, eternal nature of the Law, the fact is it's over.

There's probably nothing more obvious in history than that (aside from Christ's death, burial and resurrection of course)!