Especially relative to point three, I’d like to say that it is how Israel is presented in our premises, assuming it’s present at all, that will shape our theological system. However, I’d like to take his list and add a little something to it. If Israel is not present in our premises, Israel will not be present in our fully formed theological system.īeyond what I can read on the screen, I have no idea what Jacob is teaching, nor will I until FFOZ publishes his presentation in a text or audio format.The premises we choose will determine the shape of our theology.All theological systems are based on premises that cannot be proved, but must be accepted on faith.I saw his photo next to a projection of a PowerPoint slide. Jacob Fronczak, a church Pastor and contributor to First Fruits of Zion, particularly in recent issues of Messiah Journal, is one of the presenters at this year’s Shavuot Conference. I want to point out something else, something that’s directly related to my experience at church last Sunday. It’s not long and you can read it for yourself. I’ve provided the link to Lancaster’s original article. The answer lies in interpreting Yeshua’s words through the lens of other, similar Rabbinic teachings of that era rather than filtering them through modern Christian doctrine. That is, unless the traditional Christian interpretation has problems. The problem, and maybe you spotted it, comes in with the last sentence: “The old is better.” If the Old is the Law and Jesus was teaching that the New, that is grace replacing the Law, is better, how can he possibly say that the old is better? In almost unanimous consent interpreters and commentators have agreed that the old wine, old wineskins and the old coat are all symbols of Judaism and Law whereas the new wine and the new coat are symbols of Christianity and Grace. Just as the new wine would burst the old skins and be spilled, so too the New Covenant Gospel of the Church Kingdom would be wasted if it was poured into the Old Covenant, Mosaic, legalistic religion of Judaism.
Thomas Lancaster called New Wine and Old Wineskins: The Parable of Luke 5:36-39 Re-examined.Īccording to Lancaster, the “wineskin” parable is typically interpreted by the Church as old wine/wineskin being the old, outmoded Law, and new wine/wineskin being the new teaching of salvation by the grace of Christ.
He also provided a link to an article written by D. Old wineskins = disciples who can’t embrace new teaching. The first is that I saw yet another photo posted on Facebook of a presentation, in this case, by Jacob Fronczak, at the First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) 2014 Shavuot Conference at Beth Immanuel Sabbath Fellowship in Hudson, WI (the photo is posted below), and the second was a comment made by Steve Petersen on a prior blog post: I wasn’t going to write another blog post so soon, but two things happened. I normally don’t use the NIV translation, but it more accurately translates Yeshua’s (Jesus’) last word as “better” rather than “good” or “fine”.
And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’” No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins.
#WINESKIN PARABLE PATCH#
Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. He told them this parable: “No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one.