Unorganized notes for and continuation of Mike Winger Hebrew Roots

Isaiah 56:1-8

-Not one jot

-Least in the kingdom

-pray flight be not on the Sabbath.

You will keep them

-Sabbath to Sabbath, new moon to new moon.

Dietary.

No longer Gentiles

-you who were formerly Gentiles

-Israel of God

-grafted in

-No longer strangers and foreigners but members of Commonwealth

citizens

-For Moses is preached (Acts)

Absurdities

-View of the law - bad, dangerous, ministration of death

-Yet continue to keep and uphold law

-Done away with, but 90% still upheld as binding

-Religiously keep holidays but use Gal.

-Love is the fulfillment of the law. (So seances and beastiality are okay then?)

-How do the new testament authors determine what is fornication?

-4 things

Dietary verses

Sabbath contradictions (dangerous or preference?)

-Waxeth old ready to vanish OR

Already fulfilled/done away, abolished?

-Church didn't start in Acts. (Take it to the church, church in the wilderness, Greek word in septuagent, elect, Israel of God)

-Whosoever breaks and teaches.. does and teaches.. in the kingdom. What did his listeners understand him to mean? What do the readers of the Gospels understand him to mean? What time period is he referring to?

-Paul - can be easily understood when you keep everything in the (narrow) context in which it was actually said. Primarily, the law is spoken of in the context of justification and a rebuttal against the necessity of circumcision.

Paul's ministry:

Spread the light of the Gospel to the gentiles.

His first important task was to make the Jewish Messiah appealing to gentiles that knew nothing of the Torah or prophets. This is why Paul's letters and message seems different, because he primarily ministered and wrote to gentiles (after giving up on the dispersed Jews).

As part of this, he also needed to convince the Jews - and the gentiles that they were trying to convince - that the Gentiles do not need to be covered to full-fledged Judaism in order to be saved. The circumcision party said they needed to be circumcised and commit to keeping the law - this is what it means to "be under" the law.

His negative discourses about the law were to show that being under the law (the Sinai covenant) provided no benefit in regards to salvation, which they already had. It was never to show that the law itself had no benefit.

Because they had the Holy Spirit prior to knowing much about the Bible or how to follow God, he could tell them to rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance. Yet, it is clearly seen how the circumcision party still was able to get a foothold in their groups. The gentile converts were hungry for knowledge about the God of Israel and the Jewish evangelists (that Christ spoke of) were all too willing to give it, with a catch - they had to be circumcised. This is why they were excluding the Gentiles. It was not a racial or cultural thing between Christians. The Jews (some of them themselves probably Christians) wanted converts for themselves.

-circumcision. Ironically, there is no law stating that a converted gentile needed to be circumcised. The only law requiring circumcision refers to infants on the 8th day, and in order to eat of the Passover sacrifice.

-We are not under the law. The problem with antinomian teaching is that they conclude that this is referring to the law of Moses specifically, when the law of Moses contains the moral law that they say we must continue to uphold. The end result is that they conclude that it is the "ceremonial" law that we are no longer under.

Yet, when the Bible refers to the burden of the law, it is absurd to think that it is referring to the ceremonial laws specifically. It is the whole law that they could not keep (for in breaking one law... Notice how ceremonial laws are not used as an example) the burden is that they were given the highest standard of any other nation and required to keep it under penalty.

Christ kept the whole law, the strictest version of the law ever giving (which contained the "moral" law of the conscience)

-issue with phrase "moral law"

-many deny the faith. The problem with using that as a metric is that entire mainstream denominations have gone completely apostate.

-Why do Christians think that not keeping a handful of holidays and miscellaneous laws is what keeps them from believing they are saved by works?

-The "curse of the law" is not "the curse that is the law" it is "the curse within the law" (ie the curse upon law breakers). This is stated in Gal 3:10.

-Middle wall of partition. Eph 2:14. Not the law. Man made tradition to keep gentiles separate. It is being used as a metaphor. V 15 law of commandments "contained in ordnances". Example - "it is unlawful for me being a Jew to eat with a gentile."

This was a secondary accomplishment of the cross - to abolish any notions of division invented by men. (See first points)

-dietary. "All food clean" "kingdom not in food and drink" 4 things, alcohol. That which is an abomination doesn't change.

We will be keeping it.

Keeping a handful of holidays and miscellaneous commands does not make you and more prone to legalism or trusting in works.

-many myriads of believers zealous for the law.

-keeping the law doesn't add anything to your salvation. Yes, but what does not keeping the law add to your salvation. Why wouldn't you want to? Because you don't have to? But they're God's holy, righteous, good laws.

-The argument that it's dangerous to keep them is the most absurd of all.

--–--–-++-_+_++++ &&

Starts by describing the Hebrew Roots/Messianic movement.

But right near the beginning he describes how there are those who believe obedience to the law of Moses is required for salvation, people that throw out Paul.

Recognizes these are extremes and that it is a very diverse group.

Describes the commonality - We aught to keep them.

Says Psalm 119 is representative - looked for people to tell him who represents the movement.

(did not want to address a misrepresentation/misunderstanding.)

Says it was hard to find groups that actually addresses Paul

Thinks the law is wonderful, and has done lengthy teachings on parts of the Torah, etc.

BUT - application

We’re not desired by God to obey the law. [PREMISE]

Clip of Ps 119: Do you have an unsettling feeling? Truth becomes not not true.

Manipulative.

Unsettling feeling.

Tactics.

Yes, this is the “hook” if you will. You’re assuming that because he’s wrong, this is a manipulative tactic. But if they are right, then that unsettling feeling is valid. The fact is, this is a Spirit led movement founded by no human organization or leader. Many people do have that unsettling feeling, and it is to those people that this is addressed. The feeling is not what convinces us of the MM, but it is the initial prompt to begin questioning mainstream tradition.

Something can be true and not apply of all time

Abraham and Isaac example

13:41 -

The law never applied to Gentiles as something they were all supposed to do.

They were never “under the law”.

To ask if we are supposed to obey the law of Moses, it wasn’t even expected during the time of Moses for gentiles.

Ps 119: Can something that God declared to be truth become not true later?

This is an error because that’s not what they (mainstream) are saying.

15:20 This is why they reject Paul, because they hold to this principle and “Paul clearly teaches against what they are saying”

Weird principle - If the law doesn’t apply to me, then it isn’t true.

Psalm 119 makes the claim that Jesus is the Word and that He does not change.

He goes into explaining that Christ is not the scripture.

This is a straw man. The law is the word of God. Messianics are not saying that the Yeshua is the Scriptures.

There are prophetic things in the law that point to the law’s application being changed.

Hebrews 7:11-14 - Change of the priesthood.

There is necessarily a changed in the law

24:00 HR people are confused on their theology and have to rip pages out of their Bible

It is immature to take an overly simplistic principle like this and apply it to Scripture as a basis for reinterpreting it.

It is applying philosophy and principles to force the Bible to say something that it doesn’t.

Ps 119: You can’t take part of Jesus, you have to take the whole thing, therefore you can’t take part of scripture, you have to take the whole thing.

MW paraphrase: Rejecting the OT law is like rejecting a chunk of Jesus.

30:10 “The whole bible teaches differently than that”

1 John 3:4

It is not talking about the Law of Moses.

1 John 2:3 … 9 10 (love)... 1John 3:23.

Lawlessness is general unrighteousness.

Tends to be a progression. You should obey the law, you have to or else, let;s ditch Paul, forget Jesus.

Lets obey the law - enamored by Jewish things.

Said we’re not saved by keeping the law, but then kind of move to saying that.

Does Jesus want Christians to follow the Law of Moses.

If he is saying that he wants to do it.

Psalm 119 replied to him

They took a firm stance that we are not saved by keeping the law

Matthew 5 and 28. Foundational to Ps 119

Challenging, complicated.

Matthew 5:17, 28:20

Looks good, pretty strong, can understand how someone would be persuaded by that.

Diff contexts.

Ex. Matt 10:5 + 28:20 = Uh oh.

That was temporary, there is no indication that 5:17 was temporary

He acknowledges this, but he tries to prove that the law was temporary.

Deut 5:2+3 - Not with our fathers.

*Law and Covenant are sometimes used interchangeably.

Gal 3:17 - Law shows up 430 years after Abraham

Gen 26:5 - Didn’t mean the law of Moses because it wasn’t given according to Gal 3:17

Referring to his specific commands to Abraham

The law had a beginning point and was just for Israel.

Deut 4:8 - unique for Israel.

Ex 12:49 - One law. Only for those that sojourn among them.They were given the same protections as a citizen.

Romans 2:12 proves that there are those that are with the law and some without.Law is limited in scope.

This is the understanding that we start with when we get to Matthew.

Amos rebukes gentile nations for specific things, but Israel is rebuked for not keeping the law of Moses.

The law had an exchange coming. Jer 31:31 – New covenant is unlike the old one.

The “law” can refer to many kinds of law.

This is the law of Christ (says later in vid will be discussed)

22:30 Hebrews 8:13

9:9-10.

Until the time of reformation.

24:50 Matthew 5 is before the new covenant has come.

V17

Will not abolish - HR

Came to fulfill - doesn’t mean destroy, reject, abolish or set aside.

Means accomplish fulfil, achieve its intended end.

Talks about the Greek, which has prophetic meanings throughout

What happens when he fulfills it?

Not answered in this passage.

V18 not talking about when the law will pass away, but how it will not pass away.

It will not pass away in iotas and dots, he is going to accomplish it fully at once, not in a piecemeal way.

The law is predictive, not just prescriptive.

The idea that only part of the law was fulfilled, so the whole thing is applicable

The law was never meant for the gentiles anyway.

Luke 24:44

Gal 3:19 - the law was added until the offspring. … v25

M 5:19 - begins ripping on the Pharisees for adding unbiblical commands onto the Torah

If you strip it down (relax) then you’re going to think you’re righteous because you keep it, self righteousness.

Christ continues to give the undiluted law.

37:20 Lust is still wrong. Moral things that are transcending that were in the law too.

Matt 15:24 - only sent to Israel. 10:5.

He mentions this many times during the video.

Matt 28:18

Misses the full teaching of matt 5.

Ignores all the Jesus commands.

Not how the apostles interpreted it.

They didn’t tell the Gentiles to keep the law.

John 4:19 - There is a change coming. It won’t be about location, but it will be about the spirit.

Luke 22:20 -

John 13:34 - A new commandment. Love.

+-+-&-+---___—++++_-

What do you mean by "have to" keep the law?

Both sides

Who was the circumcision party?

Why was they able to gain a foothold in the gentile church?

Why wouldn't you want to keep the law of the God that saved you?

21:57 - early church often rejected tradition

He keeps saying that he would expect specific teaching saying the gentiles needed to keep Torah.

Grafting in

Nt only to Judah and Israel.

Jer 31:31

New Jerusalem

Former gentiles.

Col

Not enough time spent on HR arguments.

36:50 - Peter's vision. Common, unclean.

44:32 - It didn't make sense because you dismissed the thing that makes it make sense based on nothing. Note that you have to to continue using this passage in regards to food.

45:12 - Missing? That is the context of the entire debate.

53:03 never once does it mention... Well, where do you get this totally arbitrary standard.

48:25 - Antioch. Year of discipleship. Remember this.

1:00:15 - Yoke of the law.

1:09:03 - making stuff up to pretend that The law was going to be taught to Gentiles.

Only if you ignore the purpose of the phrase "for the law of Moses [is read in every city]."

Where do you think gentile converts are going to hear the word of the God they have come to know? Do you know how many people have the Bible at this time? Do you think they just had private studies with Paul? Where did they originally hear preaching?

The council is making it abundantly clear that salvation is attained apart from circumcision or the law. The 4 things are the bare minimum for keeping fellowship with Jews.

It seems of to say, "do these 4 things, two of them you being be obeying anyway, and two of which are just for the sake of fellowship" just because Moses is read (ie, Jews get finicky about them).

V28 "essentials". Meaning, these are the bare minimum.

1:10:40 - Mike's big question.

Because it was so obvious it wasn't necessary. How else would they learn what sanctification was? (mention positive law verses) How would they know which laws were for the Jews and which ones are for them? Moral, civil, ceremonial.

Only talking about a few laws (list). Burden? The feasts and dietary law are a burden?

They are grafted in. It's not about the law, it's about the covenant. They are grafted in without circumcision. There is no law saying a gentile needs to be circumcised.

Passover.

Lamb meat (sacrifice)

Jerusalem

Pilgrimage

Dispersion

Why should must would?

Zealous for the law

Your house is left to you desolate.

List unclean animals we're "free" to eat

--–--–-++-_+_++++ &&