Matthew 5:17-20 and Acts 15:5-29

[food4thought]

If you're talking about those parts of the Mosaic Law that Christians see as abolished, Jesus and His disciples did break them. See Matthew 12:1-3 and Mark 7:18-20, for example.

Hi, Radagast, thanks for responding. I don't see Matthew 12:1-3 as breaking the Law, but the traditions of the elders... what they were doing was not work. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and He alone determines what is lawful on the Sabbath, not the cumulative teaching of the rabbi's.

Mark 7:18-20, though, is a direct statement that the dietary instructions in the Law of Moses are not binding on Christians. This does create a problem with Matthew 5:17-20 and even Deuteronomy 13:1-4. How do you reconcile the problem?

 

[Radagast]

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath

And consequently all that stuff about "a Sabbath day's journey" no longer applies.

Mark 7:18-20, though, is a direct statement that the dietary instructions in the Law of Moses are not binding on Christians.

Correct.

This does create a problem with Matthew 5:17-20

I'm not seeing a problem.

even Deuteronomy 13:1-4. How do you reconcile the problem?

Did you just accuse Jesus of being a false prophet?

I'm putting you on ignore.

 

[food4thought]

And consequently all that stuff about "a Sabbath day's journey" no longer applies.

That is correct.

Correct.

Ok.

I'm not seeing a problem.

Matthew 5:19 says:

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.​

You don't find this teaching of Jesus to be problematic? He is basically telling His disciples that the entire Law is to be obeyed, and to teach others the same.

Did you just accuse Jesus of being a false prophet?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Jesus is my Lord and Savior, and He is the Word made flesh! He is God, and He has the right to overrule the Law of Moses. I am trying to reconcile what He taught in Matthew 5 with later teachings of Paul, and you pointed out that Mark 7:17-20 is at odds with the Law of Moses. I am trying to see how all of this fits together.

I'm putting you on ignore.

I wish you wouldn't. I am simply trying to fit the NT pieces together into a coherent whole.

 

[jerry kelso]

If you're talking about those parts of the Mosaic Law that Christians see as abolished, Jesus and His disciples did break them. See Matthew 12:1-3 and Mark 7:18-20, for example.

radagast,

1. Jesus couldn’t have broken the law of Moses otherwise he couldn’t be the sinless sacrifice.

2. Jesus defended his position by giving the parallel of David and those with them.
His disciples were hungry because of shortage not because of mealtime.
He also talked about the priests in the temple that profaned the law? These Pharisee leaders were hypocrites like those profane leaders before.
The son of man is Lord of the sabbath.
Deuteronomy 23:25 allowed them to do this on the sabbath day. Deuteronomy 23:25; When thou come into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou majesty pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor’s standing corn.
Matthew 12:1; At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn and his disciples were an hungered and began to pluck the ears of corn.
Jesus didn’t break the Mosaic law. Jerry Kelso

 

[food4thought]

1. Jesus couldn’t have broken the law of Moses otherwise he couldn’t be the sinless sacrifice.

Hi Jerry. Agree completely.

2. Jesus defended his position by giving the parallel of David and those with them.
His disciples were hungry because of shortage not because of mealtime.
He also talked about the priests in the temple that profaned the law? These Pharisee leaders were hypocrites like those profane leaders before.
The son of man is Lord of the sabbath.
Deuteronomy 23:25 allowed them to do this on the sabbath day. Deuteronomy 23:25; When thou come into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou majesty pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor’s standing corn.
Matthew 12:1; At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn and his disciples were an hungered and began to pluck the ears of corn.
Jesus didn’t break the Mosaic law. Jerry Kelso

The question wasn't whether they could pluck some grain from another's field, but whether what they were doing was work on the Sabbath day. The tradition of the Rabbi's said that plucking the grain and then separating the grain from the chaff (which was easily done by rubbing the grain between your hands) was equivalent to harvesting and threshing, which was not lawful on the Sabbath. Of course, that is a ridiculously stringent definition of "work", and the disciples were not working, they were eating, which was entirely lawful, even on the Sabbath.

Radagast did bring up a difficult passage in Mark 7:17-20... how do you read that passage?

 

[food4thought]

Radagast did bring up a difficult passage in Mark 7:17-20... how do you read that passage?

Just to clarify, I see the solution to the problem as being related to the intended audiences of the two gospels. Matthew was written primarily to evangelize a Jewish audience, who were under the Law of Moses. Also, in Matthew 5:19 Jesus was speaking to an audience of Jews who were still under the Law (Jesus had not yet gone to the cross and resurrected), so it was only proper to teach them to keep the Law and instruct others to do so. In the Gospel of Mark, which was written primarily for the Roman mind, Mark is trying to evangelize gentile Romans, who were never under the Law of Moses. Therefore it is not surprising that Mark makes a note on what Jesus said regarding defilement, saying that Jesus declared all foods clean... it was written to gentiles, who would, at the time, be pressured by legalistic Jewish believers to keep the dietary laws, and Mark uses what Jesus said about the ritual washing of hands to bring out a deeper truth.

God bless;
Michael

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hello everyone! I am wondering how different theological traditions reconcile these two passages. Please let me know what tradition you are from and how you go about making sense of this apparent contradiction.

God bless you!
Michael

I think the parallel of the Matthew verse in Luke and Jesus saying "it is finished" paints the picture illustrated in Colossians 2.

 

[food4thought]

I think the parallel of the Matthew verse in Luke

Are you referencing Luke 16:16-17?

and Jesus saying "it is finished"

What do you think Jesus meant when He said "It is finished"? The Greek has at least two different meanings: "it is finished", and "paid in full"... I have always leaned towards "paid in full", but it could be both.

paints the picture illustrated in Colossians 2.

I think you are primarily referencing Colossians 2:13-17... that would say, if I understand you correctly, that the Law has been "canceled out" and "nailed to the cross".

Am I following what you are trying to say?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Are you referencing Luke 16:16-17?



What do you think Jesus meant when He said "It is finished"? The Greek has at least two different meanings: "it is finished", and "paid in full"... I have always leaned towards "paid in full", but it could be both.



I think you are primarily referencing Colossians 2:13-17... that would say, if I understand you correctly, that the Law has been "canceled out" and "nailed to the cross".

Am I following what you are trying to say?

Yep, you're following. Paid in Full is the context it was used at the time most commonly on Roman receipts. Paid in full is more illustrative. The luke passage I believe was the one you quoted, yes.

The law has been nailed to the cross so we could be saved.

 

[food4thought]

Yep, you're following. Paid in Full is the context it was used at the time most commonly on Roman receipts. Paid in full is more illustrative.

I agree.

The luke passage I believe was the one you quoted, yes.

That indicates that the Law and Prophets were until John the Baptist... how does that fit in with Matthew 5:19?

The law has been nailed to the cross so we could be saved.

Totally agree.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That indicates that the Law and Prophets were until John the Baptist... how does that fit in with Matthew 5:19?

Seems to relate to sanctification and rewards or lack thereof.

 

[Ken Rank]

The Church saints are not obligated to observe these today Colossians 2: 16-17. Why? Because they are a shadow of things t come.

Don't let anyone judge you when it comes to the feasts or Sabbath because they ARE a shadow of things TO COME. Meaning, Jerry... they STILL point to something that hasn't happened yet. So why wouldn't we do them if whatever it is they point to hasn't been fulfilled.

And nowhere, nowhere... are the feasts said to be for the Jews. They are God's feasts and are for all of Israel, of which we are part.

Blessings.

 

[jerry kelso]

Don't let anyone judge you when it comes to the feasts or Sabbath because they ARE a shadow of things TO COME. Meaning, Jerry... they STILL point to something that hasn't happened yet. So why wouldn't we do them if whatever it is they point to hasn't been fulfilled.

And nowhere, nowhere... are the feasts said to be for the Jews. They are God's feasts and are for all of Israel, of which we are part.
The church will rule in the kingdom Revelation 5:9-10. Also they will rule in other parts of the universe

Blessings.

kenrank,

1. The Jewish nation has an earthly calling. The church has a heavenly calling.
Those who believe in the Spiritual Jew theory do not agree with or recognize the difference between the earthly calling and the Heavenly calling.

2. The KoH reign is when the feasts will be reconstituted will begin.
Israel has to receive the New Covenant to receive the millennial Kingdom as head of the nations Isaiah 2:2-4;9:6-7.
The church is not obligated to do the feasts and holy days.

3. The feasts were forever for the Jewish nation Exodus 12:14.
1 Corinthians 5:7 our Passover was sacrificed for us.

4. The Passover for a Jew was a memorial for the freedom from Egyptian Bondage.
It was also a type that pointed to Christ the Passover Lamb John 1:31, not the church. We are looking back at the cross and we commemorate through the Lord’s supper which Christ said do this in remembrance of me mentioned by Paul to the Corinthian church.

5. In the millennial kingdom we will take part and so will the other nations Zechariah 14.
Israel will administer these feasts.

6. The church will rule and reign in the KoH Revelation 5:9-10 and throughout the universe Colossians 1:16. I have to go. Jerry Kelso

 

[Ken Rank]

kenrank,

1. The Jewish nation has an earthly calling. The church has a heavenly calling.
Those who believe in the Spiritual Jew theory do not agree with or recognize the difference between the earthly calling and the Heavenly calling.

2. The KoH reign is when the feasts will be reconstituted will begin.
Israel has to receive the New Covenant to receive the millennial Kingdom as head of the nations Isaiah 2:2-4;9:6-7.
The church is not obligated to do the feasts and holy days.

3. The feasts were forever for the Jewish nation Exodus 12:14.
1 Corinthians 5:7 our Passover was sacrificed for us.

4. The Passover for a Jew was a memorial for the freedom from Egyptian Bondage.
It was also a type that pointed to Christ the Passover Lamb John 1:31, not the church. We are looking back at the cross and we commemorate through the Lord’s supper which Christ said do this in remembrance of me mentioned by Paul to the Corinthian church.

5. In the millennial kingdom we will take part and so will the other nations Zechariah 14.
Israel will administer these feasts.

6. The church will rule and reign in the KoH Revelation 5:9-10 and throughout the universe Colossians 1:16. I have to go. Jerry Kelso

I don't know what KOH is and there is no verse that says the feasts are for Jews only... they were given to Israel. Not all of Israel are Jews, Jerry.

 

[~Zao~]

The feasts from the OT seem to correlate in the NT names of God. The feast is in the edification in Jesus the Risen Lord, moved from that which is seen to that which belongs to Spirit and truth (reality)

• Feast # 7 to the God of All Grace
• Feast # 6 to the God of Peace
• Feast # 5 to the God of Love
• Feast # 4 to the God of Mercy
• Feast # 3 to the God of Hope
• Feast # 2 to the God of Consolation
• Feast # 1 to the God of Glory

 

[Ken Rank]

The feasts from the OT seem to correlate in the NT names of God. The feast is in the edification in Jesus the Risen Lord, moved from that which is seen to that which belongs to Spirit and truth (reality)

• Feast # 7 to the God of All Grace
• Feast # 6 to the God of Peace
• Feast # 5 to the God of Love
• Feast # 4 to the God of Mercy
• Feast # 3 to the God of Hope
• Feast # 2 to the God of Consolation
• Feast # 1 to the God of Glory

Each one is designed to tell a story... that was the intent all along. The first one listed, often over looked (in Lev. 23) is the Sabbath. 6 days of work, toil, and sweat equal to 6000 years of the same. The 7th day, a rest day... refreshes the body for the next week but also points to the Millennial Kingdom where work, toil, sweat and death will be no more for those in Christ. Passover, about the redemption of those in slavery, points to our redemption. Each and every feast points to things that has happened or will yet happen. And here is the kicker... Genesis 1:14... where you see the word "seasons," isn't talking about summer and fall... it is the Hebrew word Moedim... the word we translate as feasts. Thus, the stars were placed in the heavens for a number of reasons including pointing to messiah's work... BEFORE Adam was even created, let alone before he sinned.

God had our path of redemption laid out before we even sinned!

 

[jerry kelso]

I don't know what KOH is and there is no verse that says the feasts are for Jews only... they were given to Israel. Not all of Israel are Jews, Jerry.

ken,

1. KoH is the Kingdom of Heaven.
In its physical location is the earth known as the kingdom under the Heaven Daniel 7:27.

2. The Greek Basiliea physically is a kingdom with a King to rule over a region.
Spiritually it is the kingdom from the Heavens for this age as God rules in our hearts and from the throne room in Heaven.
In the millennial kingdom Christ will rule literally on earth.


2. The feasts were given to Israel is true.
They were to each generation forever Exodus 12:14.
The gentiles had no covenant with God in those generations back in the Old Testament and there was no body of Christ either.
This verse talks about physical posterity of the Jewish nation and yes they will have to be believers for God will not rule with man without a holy heart and in
Zechariah shows the feasts will be located the land of Israel where David will be king over the Jews not the body of Christ as the spiritual Jew theory implies. Jerry Kelso

 

[Ken Rank]

The gentiles had no covenant with God in those generations back in the Old Testament and there was no body of Christ either.

Jerry, when Israel came out of Egypt, non-Israelites came with them. Depending on your translation, they are called strangers or foreigners... but the Hebrew is clear, they were not Israelites. When they all got to Mt. Sinai, we see three things said by God concerning those non-Israelites...

1. They were to assimilate into the tribes they traveled with.
2. The law was given to Israel AND the non-Israelite with them
3. Israel was to treat THEM as if "native born."

Your idea, the mainstream Christian idea, that gentiles were not part of the covenant at Sinai is wrong, sorry, there is no other way to say it. From the very beginning, it was Israel >>AND<< those non-Israelites that chose to walk with them, follow their God, and live by their ways.

Zechariah shows the feasts will be located the land of Israel where David will be king over the Jews not the body of Christ as the spiritual Jew theory implies.

Of course the Feasts will once again happen in the land of Israel. However, it will not be "David" but rather Yeshua, Jesus... who will reign. Are you familiar with the two messiah theology of the Jews? Long ago, before Yeshua walked the earth, certain teachers would teach that there would be two Messiah's...

1. Mashiach ben Yosef (Messiah son of Joseph) the suffering servant
2. Machiach ben David (Messiah son of David) the Conquering King

Zechariah is simply speaking about King Messiah, not suffering servant Messiah. WE KNOW that this is the same guy... He came as the suffering servant, He returns as the Conquering King... but same guy. So when Zechariah uses "David" there.... it is speaking of the King Messiah. He will not be the King over the Jews Jerry, He will be the King over the ENTIRE House of Israel which includes the Jews... and you, and me, and all the other Christians. By the way, Zech 12:10 reveals how the "Jews" will come to see Him for who He is. And yes, that verse is speaking about only Jews. The inhabitants of the city of David is Jews (primarily).

 

[jerry kelso]

Jerry, when Israel came out of Egypt, non-Israelites came with them. Depending on your translation, they are called strangers or foreigners... but the Hebrew is clear, they were not Israelites. When they all got to Mt. Sinai, we see three things said by God concerning those non-Israelites...

1. They were to assimilate into the tribes they traveled with.
2. The law was given to Israel AND the non-Israelite with them
3. Israel was to treat THEM as if "native born."

Your idea, the mainstream Christian idea, that gentiles were not part of the covenant at Sinai is wrong, sorry, there is no other way to say it. From the very beginning, it was Israel >>AND<< those non-Israelites that chose to walk with them, follow their God, and live by their ways.


Of course the Feasts will once again happen in the land of Israel. However, it will not be "David" but rather Yeshua, Jesus... who will reign. Are you familiar with the two messiah theology of the Jews? Long ago, before Yeshua walked the earth, certain teachers would teach that there would be two Messiah's...

1. Mashiach ben Yosef (Messiah son of Joseph) the suffering servant
2. Machiach ben David (Messiah son of David) the Conquering King

Zechariah is simply speaking about King Messiah, not suffering servant Messiah. WE KNOW that this is the same guy... He came as the suffering servant, He returns as the Conquering King... but same guy. So when Zechariah uses "David" there.... it is speaking of the King Messiah. He will not be the King over the Jews Jerry, He will be the King over the ENTIRE House of Israel which includes the Jews... and you, and me, and all the other Christians. By the way, Zech 12:10 reveals how the "Jews" will come to see Him for who He is. And yes, that verse is speaking about only Jews. The inhabitants of the city of David is Jews (primarily).

Ken,

You are misunderstanding about the gentiles not having a covenant. Paul said that in Ephesians they were aliens from the covenant.
To be a part of Israel the gentiles were proselyted in and received the sign of circumcision.
Overall, the Jews were not to associate with the gentile race.
You can’t reconcile Ephesians 3 with Genesis 12 passage with your position.

2. Yes, Israel did reject the suffering savior Isaiah 53.
Yes they will mourn when they see him coming the one they pierced Revelation 1:7; 19:11-15 King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
But, Jeremiah 30:7-10 the Lord God is Jesus and the servant is the real King David. Got to go.

 

[Ken Rank]

Ken,

You are misunderstanding about the gentiles not having a covenant. Paul said that in Ephesians they were aliens from the covenant.

Jerry, go back and read it. Paul said you WERE a gentile, WERE an alien of the Commonwealth of Israel, but are NOW (though the blood of Christ) a fellow citizen.

If you go back and look at the 1828 Webster's, you will find that a gentile is anyone who is not a Jew OR a Christian. If you look at today's Webster's... it means anyone who isn't Jewish. The meaning has changed IN ENGLISH and in our culture... but not in the bible and not before a God that does not change. A "gentile Christian" is an oxy-moron because a gentile is a pagan, a heathen, anyone who doesn't belong to God.

But, Jeremiah 30:7-10 the Lord God is Jesus and the servant is the real King David. Got to go.

Time will tell... but like I said... the name "David" is used abstractly for King Messiah. Just as "Joseph" is used for Messiah as the suffering servant. Real men, real lives... that God used to depict various aspects of Yeshua's work. I am not sure why you feel the need to argue against this, but I guess that's just what Christians do today, argue.