Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[expos4ever]

Jesus was speaking against being made common by eating with unwashed hands (Mark 7:1-13, Matthew 15:20), which has absolutely nothing to do with challenging the notion that there are unclean animals.

You appear to believe that just because the conversation began with a discussion of unwashed hands, the topic of conversation cannot evolve to something else. The problem with your position is that the logic of what Jesus says after his statement about "nothing that goes into you makes you unclean" does not work with your view.

And this is over and above the fact that you have Jesus saying "nothing that goes into you makes you unclean" while believing that all sorts of things that go into you make you unclean.

Here is how Jesus explains his "nothing" statement:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?

Is a piece of shellfish a something that "goes into the stomach and is eliminated?". Of course it is! So by the logic of the statement, Jesus is saying that the shellfish does not defile.

And that is a direct challenge to the Law of Moses.

You guys appear to think that you can simply claim that the conversation was initially about handwashing and think this gives you licence to do almost anything you want with the rest of the passage, not least redefining "nothing" to mean "nothing other than pork, shellfish, and a whole list of other things".

As I have said before, if Jesus were to want to claim that the food laws are being overturned, a discussion of handwashing is a perfectly legitimate point to begin from - He can then steer the conversation to the more significant topic - the status of the Law of Moses.

 

[Soyeong]

You appear to believe that just because the conversation began with a discussion of unwashed hands, the topic of conversation cannot evolve to something else. The problem with your position is that the logic of what Jesus says after his statement about "nothing that goes into you makes you unclean" does not work with your view.

I'm not denying that it is possible for a conversation can progress to different topics, but I saying that we should not come in from left field and interpret them as making a ruling about topic that had nothing to do with what they were discussing, especially when we should have major problems with that interpretation thatI've already stated.

And this is over and above the fact that you have Jesus saying "nothing that goes into you makes you unclean" while believing that all sorts of things that go into you make you unclean.

Here is how Jesus explains his "nothing" statement:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?

Is a piece of shellfish a something that "goes into the stomach and is eliminated?". Of course it is! So by the logic of the statement, Jesus is saying that the shellfish does not defile.

Again, the issue of not being made common by what we eat has nothing to do with the issue of eating unclean animals. The Bible does to those Greek words for "common" and "defile" interchangeably, so they refer to different concepts.

And that is a direct challenge to the Law of Moses.

That's something that you should have a major problem with. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so if your interpretation were correct, then Jesus was sinning and disqualifying himself as our Savior. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if Jesus was challenging it, then according to God, we should consider him to be a false prophet. His critics would have for once had a legitimate reason to stone him and they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but this incident was never even brought up, and no one seemed to have noticed that he had made such a radical statement in rebellion against the Father. It is far, far more reasonable to interpret Jesus as continuing to speak about the topic of conversation.

You guys appear to think that you can simply claim that the conversation was initially about handwashing and think this gives you licence to do almost anything you want with the rest of the passage, not least redefining "nothing" to mean "nothing other than pork, shellfish, and a whole list of other things".

As I have said before, if Jesus were to want to claim that the food laws are being overturned, a discussion of handwashing is a perfectly legitimate point to begin from - He can then steer the conversation to the more significant topic - the status of the Law of Moses.

Jesus said nothing about overturning any of Mosaic Laws and he did not steer the conversation to the topic of the status of the Mosaic Law. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law, so there is no change in its status, especially because it is eternal (Psalms 119:160).

 

[John Mullally]

Jesus said nothing about overturning any of Mosaic Laws and he did not steer the conversation to the topic of the status of the Mosaic Law. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law, so there is no change in its status, especially because it is eternal (Psalms 119:160).

Paul clearly states that Gentile believers are not required to keep almost all of the Mosaic Law​

Fifteen years after the Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:23-29) written to Gentile belivers, Paul clearly states that the Gentiles believers were still not commanded to keep almost all of the 10 commandments.

Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”​

 

[Soyeong]

Paul clearly states that Gentile believers are not required to keep almost all of the Mosaic Law​

Fifteen years after the Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:23-29) written to Gentile belivers, Paul clearly states that the Gentiles believers were still not command to keep almost all of the 10 commandments. Notice this agrees with the Jerusalem Decree.

Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”​

In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so if Paul had done as you suggest, then the Bereans who rejected him as being a false prophet would be acting in accordance with what God instructed them to do, though the reality is that Paul was a servant of God, so he did not do as you suggest.

Either Acts 21:24-25 is an exhaustive list for mature believers that limits which laws Gentiles should follow to those four things and nothing else or it is not, bit is is inconsistent for you to both try to use it as an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also saying that saying that Gentiles should follow other laws like almost all of the Ten Commandments. The reality is that it is not an exhaustive list for mature believers that limits which laws Gentiles should follow, but as stated in Acts 15:19-21, it is a list intended as a list for new believers in order to avoid making things things too difficult for them, which they excused because they expected that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

To use analogy. When an employer hires an employee, they don't start by having them memorize everything that they would ever need to know about how to do their job on day one, but rather in order to avoid overwhelming them, they start with just the basics with the expectation that they would continue to learn more on the job. If you expect new believers to be accountable to know 613 laws on day one, then you are going to overwhelm them, so that is what they were doing. If they had ruled that Gentile should not follow the vast majority of what Christ taught then that would essentially be ruling that Gentiles should not follow Christ.

 

[John Mullally]

To use analogy. When an employer hires an employee, they don't start by having them memorize everything that they would ever need to know about how to do their job on day one, but rather in order to avoid overwhelming them, they start with just the basics with the expectation that they would continue to learn more on the job. If you expect new believers to be accountable to know 613 laws on day one, then you are going to overwhelm them, so that is what they were doing. If they had ruled that Gentile should not follow the vast majority of what Christ taught then that would essentially be ruling that Gentiles should not follow Christ.

Your analogy does not fit.. Paul is instructing Gentile believers to only keep the same four things from the Mosaic Law that they were instructed to keep fifteen years earlier (Acts 15:29).

Gentile believers were given plenty of insttruction as can be seen in Pauls many letters to them.

Jesus's conversations about the Mosaic Law were almost with antagonistic Jewish religious leaders, and they all occurred under the Old Covenant (i.e. before His resurrection). Jesus gave a new commandment to His disciples (John 13:34).

 

[Soyeong]

Your analogy does not fit.. Paul is instructing Gentile believers to only keep the same four things from the Mosaic Law that they were instructed to keep fifteen years earlier (Acts 15:29).

Gentile believers were given plenty of insttruction as can be seen in Pauls many letters to them.

It is strange that you don't seem bothered by openly arguing for self-contradictory things.

Jesus's conversations about the Mosaic Law were almost with antagonistic Jewish religious leaders, and they all occurred under the Old Covenant (i.e. before His resurrection).

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so it would be absurd to think that he was criticizing the Pharisees for obeying what God commanded them to do. Rather, Jesus never criticize the Pharisees for obeying the Mosaic Law, but he did criticize them for not obeying it or for not obeying it correct. For example, in Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing, but not while neglecting weightier matters of the Mosaic Law of justice, mercy, and faith, so he was not opposing their obedience to it, but rather he was calling them to a fuller obedience to it in a manner that is in accordance with its weightier matters.

Jesus gave a new commandment to His disciples (John 13:34).

In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the law, so he was obligated to obey it, which includes Deuteronomy 4:2, which prohibits adding to or subtracting from the Mosaic Law, so he did not do that. We are instructed to love our neighbor in Leviticus 19:18, so Jesus was not violating Deuteronomy 4:2 by giving a brand new about that command, but what is new is the quality of the example by which we should love our neighbor, and indeed the Greek word used refers to newness with respect to quality rather than with respect to time:

3501 /néos ("new on the scene") suggests something "new in time" – in contrast to its near-synonym (2537 /kainós, "new in quality").

I order to correctly obey the command to love our neighbor as ourselves, we need to know how we should love ourselves, and the answer to that is that we should love ourselves as Jesus loves us, which is therefore how we should love our neighbor as ourselves. So Jesus was not giving a brand new command, but rather he was fulfilling the law by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended.

On a different note, do you agree or disagree with Jeremiah 31:33 and Psalms 119:160 and do you think that Paul agreed or disagreed with those verses?

 

[John Mullally]

Your analogy does not fit.. Paul is instructing Gentile believers to only keep the same four things from the Mosaic Law that they were instructed to keep fifteen years earlier (Acts 15:29).

Gentile believers were given plenty of insttruction as can be seen in Pauls many letters to them.

It is strange that you don't seem bothered by openly arguing for self-contradictory things.

There is no self-contradiction. Instructions to Gentile believers in Acts 15:23-29 and Acts 21:24-25 oppose what you have been arguing on this and many other threads.

 

[Soyeong]

There is no self-contradiction. Instructions to Gentile believers in Acts 15:23-29 and Acts 21:24-25 oppose what you have been arguing on this and many other threads.

It is only your interpretation of those verses that opposes what I have been arguing, but I've repeatedly demonstrated that your interpretation is self-contradictory because you are treating as both an exhaustive and non-exhaustive list. On the other hand, my interpretation of those verses is in accordance with what I have been arguing on this and many other threads, and the only reason that you've given for opposing my interpretations is that it doesn't fit with how you interpret it.

 

[John Mullally]

It is only your interpretation of those verses that opposes what I have been arguing, but I've repeatedly demonstrated that your interpretation is self-contradictory because you are treating as both an exhaustive and non-exhaustive list. On the other hand, my interpretation of those verses is in accordance with what I have been arguing on this and many other threads, and the only reason that you've given for opposing my interpretations is that it doesn't fit with how you interpret it.

Acts 21:24-25 makes it clear that 15 years after the Jerusalem Decree, Paul (the Apostle to the Gentiles) only requires Gentile believers to keep the four things out of the Law spoken about in the Jerusalem Decree.

​

Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”​

In his writings to Gentile believers, Paul instructs Gentiles not to commit sins of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21 and Romans 7:15-25. And you can say - aha those sins happen to be identified in the Mosaic Law. That proves nothing because Gentile believer's conscience recognize those as moral sins (Romans 2:14) without having the Mosaic Law. When addressing Gentiles, does Paul specifically reference the need to keep portions of the Law outside of the four? If not, where is contradiction?

 

[Cornelius8L]

It's not clear to me what Peter needs to be portrayed as as a foolish married adult Jew. Peter clearly knew how to distinguish between what is common and unclean because he used both words to distinguish between what he said in his vision. The keys to the kingdom give someone the authority to interpret how to correct obey God's law, but they do not give someone the authority to make changes to it. Peter could have obeyed God's commands in Leviticus 11 and His command in his vision by simply killing and eating a clean animals, but there is a reason why he objected to doing what the Torah permitted him to do, and God was making the point three times that he was incorrect to restrict himself from doing that.

You mentioned that Peter could differentiate between the common (here, means 'clean') and the unclean. But the vision did not say to kill and eat only the clean animals. (That's your added thought.) If the vision was to kill and eat only clean animals, Peter, who has the key to the kingdom, would have known what it meant. Otherwise, he is a complete idiot for telling God that he won't eat the unclean ones and then trying to figure out what the vision means (Acts 10:17). Peter was hungry, and he could just take the clean animal and eat it (Act 10:10). The only reasonable explanations for what he did are that either God told him to kill and eat every animal (both clean and unclean) that He showed him, or that all of them were unclean.

God used the word “cleanse” not “clean.” ἐκαθάρισεν (ekatharisen) (Acts 10:15, 11:9) - The process of making something clean from unclean. And in Acts 10:15, 11:9, "common" here means "impure" or "unclean." Does κοίνου (koinou) truly mean 'common (as in clean),' or was it a wrong translation?

So your stand is, is it okay to eat the unclean animal today or not?

 

[Studyman]

Your post is lengthy, but let me deal with this part first.

When Paul says this:

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

...he is recognizing the obvious: Jews are under the Law of Moses while Gentiles are not.

This is simply untrue, not according to this world's religions God placed you and I in, but according to Holy Scriptures (Law and Prophets) Paul told the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile, to "Continue in" for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Ex. 12: 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

I know you are simply promoting what you have been taught by one or more of the religions of this world God placed you in, but it's not the religious traditions of this world that we are to be instructed by, rather, the Word of God. As Peter, the Rock of Christ's Church teaches.

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."

Sodom was destroyed because they sinned. The God of the Bible is not a respecter of persons.

Surely you are not suggesting that Gentiles are subject to the Law of Moses? Here, if not elsewhere, Paul is crystal clear to the effect that the Law of Moses only governs Jews. Yes, Gentiles sin, but not because they are under the Law of Moses.

This is the doctrine of the RCC that most protestant churches have adopted. I understand how powerful religious traditions are, so I get that you feel the need to defend the philosophy you are promoting. But Paul teaches no such thing.

Acts 26: 19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they (ALL) should repent (From transgressing God's Laws) and turn to God,(Same God as the Jews God) and do works meet for repentance.

The preaching that God is a respecter of persons, and judge's men by the DNA they were born with is foolishness, and yet, that is exactly what you are promoting.

We are warned of false teachers, who come in Jesus name and we have all been influenced by the religions of this world, just as those n Abraham's time, and Paul's. It's no shame to discover a deception in our hearts. It's one very important reason we should come to the Light, so we can know if our knowledge is wrought in God, or the "other voice" in the garden God placed us in..

Are you also suggesting that the Law of Moses is the only standard which defines sin?

Moses never made even one Law. God is the one who created His "Instruction in righteousness" for His People, Jew and Non-Jew, to walk in, for their own good. God is the sole and only definer of Sin.

The deceiver, from the very beginning, works to turn humans away from HIS instruction, and definition of Sin. It does this by working to discredit God, like it did to Eve. Making God out as a liar, or respecter of persons. Show me in the Scriptures where sin is defined. We either believe what is written, or we are convinced not to believe what is written.

I want to show the perspective of a person who believes all that is written, like Paul did.

That, to me, is clearly not Biblical - as Paul writes in Romans 5, there was sin in the world long before the Law of Moses was given.

It was God's Law given to Moses, just as it was God's Law given to Noah, and given to Abraham. The teaching that sin didn't exist until
Moses is foolishness, and I do not even imply such a ridiculous notion.

Gen. 26: 4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Just like Caleb and Joshua and Zacharias and Simeon.

Finally, when you write "So even though they were "without law", they are still judged the same as the Jews", your wording is a tad unclear to me. If, repeat if, you are claiming the Gentile will be judged by the Law of Moses, you are directly contradicting Paul who writes that the Jews will judged by the Law of Moses, and Gentiles will not:

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;

It is the Gentile who is "without the Law" and Paul writes that this Gentile will be judged, but certainly not by a law the Gentile was never subject to - the Law of Moses.

The scriptures i posted disagree with this popular religious philosophy you are promoting. And certainly Paul does.

Rom. 2: 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them (Jew and Gentile) who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Your religion, which preaches God has a different standard of Judgment, depending on the DNA a man was born with is a deception. Yes, it is widely taught in the world God placed us in, but the Scriptures teach no such thing.

8 But unto them (Jew and Gentile) that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Your preaching that Paul suddenly change his mind, and contradicted himself in the very next sentence is not what Paul is doing. It is your understand of Paul, influenced by this world's religions, that it is error.

I hope you might consider the warnings of the Jesus of the Bible regarding deceivers who come in Jesus name and consider that you are not immune from them, just as I am not immune. If we see that the scriptures don't support a popular religious doctrine or religious tradition we grew up in, and/or adopted, we should, as Peter teaches, "Obey God rather than man", that is, both Jew and Gentile.

For there is no respect of persons with God.

 

[Soyeong]

NT

 

[Soyeong]

Acts 21:24-25 makes it clear that 15 years after the Jerusalem Decree, Paul (the Apostle to the Gentiles) only requires Gentile believers to keep the four things out of the Law spoken about in the Jerusalem Decree.

​

Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”​

In his writings to Gentile believers, Paul instructs Gentiles not to commit sins of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21 and Romans 7:15-25. And you can say - aha those sins happen to be identified in the Mosaic Law. That proves nothing because Gentile believer's conscience recognize those as moral sins (Romans 2:14) without having the Mosaic Law. When addressing Gentiles, does Paul specifically reference the need to keep portions of the Law outside of the four? If not, where is contradiction?

The issue again is whether Acts 21:24-25 is an exhaustive list, in which case Gentiles should do those four things and nothing else, or whether it is not exhaustive list, in which case it does. not limit which laws Gentiles should follow, and the problem is that you are trying to use it as exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while not treating it as being an exhaustive list by saying that there are other things that Gentiles should do. In Acts 21:24-25, it does not say that Gentiles should also follow their consciences, or follow the Ten Commandments, or the two greatest commandments, or avoid the things lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 or Galatians 5:19-21, and other portions of the Mosaic Law, but rather if it is an exhaustive list, then it excludes all of those things as well as everything else commanded in the Bible. The moment that you try to treat Acts 21:24-25 as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that Gentiles should obviously follow other laws like follow their conscience is the moment that it becomes self-contradictory for you to also try to use it as an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow.

In regard to Romans 2:13-14 it is only doers of the Mosaic Law who will be justified, so the main reason for someone to argue against being a doer of the law is if they don't want themselves and others to be justified. Furthermore, Gentiles will by nature be doers of the Mosaic Law even through they have it, so Paul was in full support of Gentiles obeying it even through Gentiles did not have physical possession of a Torah scroll because it was the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:1). If someone's conscience is not bothered by doing what God has revealed be sin, then that indicates that there is something seriously wrong with their conscience, not that there is nothing wrong with doing that.

 

[John Mullally]

It is strange that you don't seem bothered by openly arguing for self-contradictory things.

Acts 21:24-25 makes it clear that 15 years after the Jerusalem Decree, Paul (the Apostle to the Gentiles) only requires Gentile believers to keep the four things out of the Law spoken about in the Jerusalem Decree.

​

Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”​

In his writings to Gentile believers, Paul instructs Gentiles not to commit sins of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21 and Romans 7:15-25. And you can say - aha those sins happen to be identified in the Mosaic Law. That proves nothing because Gentile believer's conscience recognize those as moral sins (Romans 2:14) without having the Mosaic Law. When addressing Gentiles, does Paul specifically reference the need to keep portions of the Law outside of the four? If not, where is contradiction?

The issue again is whether Acts 21:24-25 is an exhaustive list, in which case Gentiles should do those four things and nothing else, or whether it is not exhaustive list, in which case it does. not limit which laws Gentiles should follow, and the problem is that you are trying to use it as exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while not treating it as being an exhaustive list by saying that there are other things that Gentiles should do. In Acts 21:24-25, it does not say that Gentiles should also follow their consciences, or follow the Ten Commandments, or the two greatest commandments, or avoid the things lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 or Galatians 5:19-21, and other portions of the Mosaic Law, but rather if it is an exhaustive list, then it excludes all of those things as well as everything else commanded in the Bible. The moment that you try to treat Acts 21:24-25 as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that Gentiles should obviously follow other laws like follow their conscience is the moment that it becomes self-contradictory for you to also try to use it as an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow.

You and your exhaustive list: Gentile believers have a conscience (Romans 2:14) and the teachings of Paul (Apostle to the Gentiles) and Paul does not instruct them to keep the Mosaic Law (outside the four thngs listed in Acts 21:25). The fact that there is overlap between the moral portions of the Mosaic Law and the two items (conscience and Paul's teachings), shows that a list of rules from the Mosaic Law is not necessary.

In regard to Romans 2:13-14 it is only doers of the Mosaic Law who will be justified, so the main reason for someone to argue against being a doer of the law is if they don't want themselves and others to be justified.

Wrong, If you keep reading through Romans 3, you find that no one (other than Jesus) is justified by keeping Mosaic Law. We are only justified by faith.

Furthermore, Gentiles will by nature be doers of the Mosaic Law even through they have it, so Paul was in full support of Gentiles obeying it even through Gentiles did not have physical possession of a Torah scroll because it was the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:1).

According to Acts 21:24-25, the rest of Paul's statements in Acts, and the rest of Paul's writings: The Jews can keep the Mosaic Law as Gentile believers are only commanded to keep the four things in Acts 21:25.

If someone's conscience is not bothered by doing what God has revealed be sin, then that indicates that there is something seriously wrong with their conscience, not that there is nothing wrong with doing that.

Assuming you are talking about moral (as opposed to Jewish ceremonial) law, we agree on that.

Summmary: You did not give any examples where Paul instructs Gentile believers to keep Mosaic Laws, outside the four things listed in Acts 21:25. Which is exactly my point. So I am not "openly arguing for self-contradictory things". Peter in Acts 15:6-11 says why the Gentile believers were not insttructed to keep the bulk of the Mosaic Law.

 

[Soyeong]

You mentioned that Peter could differentiate between the common (here, means 'clean') and the unclean. But the vision did not say to kill and eat only the clean animals. (That's your added thought.) If the vision was to kill and eat only clean animals, Peter, who has the key to the kingdom, would have known what it meant. Otherwise, he is a complete idiot for telling God that he won't eat the unclean ones and then trying to figure out what the vision means (Acts 10:17). Peter was hungry, and he could just take the clean animal and eat it (Act 10:10). The only reasonable explanations for what he did are that either God told him to kill and eat every animal (both clean and unclean) that He showed him, or that all of them were unclean.

While it is true that Peter was not specifically told to eat only clean animals in his vision, he knew that God had also commanded against eating unclean animals, so that did not leave unclean animals as an option for him to kill and eat, which left only the clean animals. The Torah permitted Peter to eat the clean animals, so again the issue that God was addressing in his vision was in regard to why he incorrectly objected to doing what the Torah permitted him to do. Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common, and God did not rebuke Peter for his use of the word "unclean", but only rebuked him for his use of the word "common". So Peter had correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that he was not supposed to eat them in obedience to Leviticus 11, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.

Again, having the keys to the Kingdom refers to having the authority to correctly interpret the Torah, but it does not refer to having the ability to automatically understand a vision. It is incorrect to consider someone to be an idiot for not immediately knowing the correct interpretation of their vision, especially when we have the advantage of already knowing the correct interpretation. Peter did not eat animals that were unclean or common, so he is not an idiot for trying to figure out what God was wanting him to eat. If all of the animals had been unclean, then Peter would have objected only by saying that he had never eaten anything unclean without adding that he had never eaten anything common.

God used the word “cleanse” not “clean.” ἐκαθάρισεν (ekatharisen) (Acts 10:15, 11:9) - The process of making something clean from unclean. And in Acts 10:15, 11:9, "common" here means "impure" or "unclean." Does κοίνου (koinou) truly mean 'common (as in clean),' or was it a wrong translation?
View attachment 328518

"Koinou" refers to ritual impurity and is is only used in the context of man-made ritual purity laws that went above and beyond what God commanded, such as in Mark 7:3-4, never in regard to unclean animals. People could gain the status of ritual impurity and be cleansed, but unclean animals were never cleaned so that people could then eat them. "Koinou" does not mean "clean" in the sense of clean animals, but clean animals can be conveyed the status of koinou by coming in contact with unclean animals. The sheet was lowered by its four corners, so all of the animals were in contact with each other because they were bundled together at the center of the sheet. So the unclean animals were in Peter's vision just to convert the status of koinou to the clean animals, not because God was wanting him to eat them.

So your stand is, is it okay to eat the unclean animal today or not?

It is has never been ok to eat unclean animals. in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). So by following God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, we are acting in accordance with His eternal holiness while the only way that those instructions can be done away with would be to do away with God's holiness.

 

[expos4ever]

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, ..

I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions.

Consider this from John 5:

Now in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Gate, there is a pool which in [a]Hebrew is called [b]Bethesda, having five [c]porticoes. 3 In these porticoes lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, limping, or [d]paralyzed.[e] 5 Now a man was there who had been [f]ill for thirty-eight years. 6 Jesus, upon seeing this man lying there and knowing that he had already been in that condition for a long time, *said to him, “Do you want to get well?” 7 The sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I am coming, another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus *said to him, “Get up, pick up your pallet and walk.” 9 Immediately the man became well, and picked up his pallet and began to walk.

Now it was a Sabbath on that day. 10 So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, “It is a Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet."

Are the Jews correct? Is it not permissible to carry a pallet on the Sabbath. Well, Jeremiah (17:21), at least, does not think that it is:

This is what the Lord says: “Take care for yourselves, and do not carry any load on the Sabbath day or bring anything in through the gates of Jerusalem. 22 You shall not bring a load out of your houses on the Sabbath day nor do any work, but keep the Sabbath day holy, just as I commanded your [j]forefathers.

 

[Soyeong]

You and your exhaustive list:

Ignoring the issue will not cause it to go away, so please clearly state whether you think the list is exhaustive or not because it is self-contradictory for you to be trying to pick both.

Gentile believers have a conscience (Romans 2:14) and the teachings of Paul (Apostle to the Gentiles) and Paul does not instruct them to keep the Mosaic Law (outside the four thngs listed in Acts 21:25).

In Roman 2:13-15, Paul said that Gentiles are by nature doers of the Mosaic Law even though they do not have it and show that the work of the law is written on there hearts which their conscience also bears witness to, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. So Paul was not saying that Gentiles should just follow their conscience, but that Gentiles should be justified by being doers of the Mosaic Law and that their conscience bears witness that it is written on their hearts, which is in accordance with Ezekiel 36:26-27 and Jeremiah 31:33. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16), and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those with uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Mosaic Law.

The fact that there is overlap between the moral portions of the Mosaic Law and the two items (conscience and Paul's teachings), shows that a list of rules from the Mosaic Law is not necessary.

To suggest that there are moral portion of the Mosaic Law is to suggest that it is moral to disobey the other portions, however, there is no example in the Bible of disobedience to the Mosaic Law being considered to be moral. Rather, morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of His laws are inherently moral laws.

Our conscience part of our fallen nature, so it is not perfect, which is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:3 that even though he was not aware of anything against himself he was not justified. So our conscience helps us to live in accordance with the Mosaic Law, but it does not replace it, and therefore is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. Our conscience is capable of warning us when our spiritual condition is in danger, but it is not the Mosaic Law, and needs to be informed by it in order to function correctly.

In Romans 14, there are weak Christians whose conscience is not informed in a mature way, where their conscience won't let them do what they really would be free to do, so again our conscience does not replace the Mosaic Law. Someone's conscience can be so misinformed that their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19), where both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). So the first way to destroy the work of conscience is to misinform it where you don't give it the Mosaic Law and the second way is to silence it when it speaks. In 1 Timothy 4:2, Paul spoke about a wounded or seared conscience, and a good indicator of this is if someone doesn't feel convicted about continuing to do what God has revealed in His law to be sin.

Wrong, If you keep reading through Romans 3, you find that no one (other than Jesus) is justified by keeping Mosaic Law. We are only justified by faith.

So then do you think that Romans 3 contradicts Romans 2:13?

In Revelation 14:12, all of those who have faith in Jesus are those who kept God's commands, so only the doers of God's commands have faith in Jesus and are justified by the same faith, which is why Paul said that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, our faith does not abolish our need to obey the Mosaic Law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you seek to abolish rather than uphold it by faith. Paul also denied in Romans 4:1-5 that we can earn our justification as a wage, so there must be reasons other than earning our justification as a wage that our justification requires us to be doers of the Mosaic Law, such as faith and love. Not even Jesus earned his justification by obeying the Mosaic Law because it was never given as a mean of earning our justification as a wage.

According to Acts 21:24-25, the rest of Paul's statements in Acts, and the rest of Paul's writings: The Jews can keep the Mosaic Law as Gentile believers are only commanded to keep the four things in Acts 21:25.

So then do you think that what Paul said in Acts 21:24-25 contradicts what he said in Romans 2:14?

Summmary: You did not give any examples where Paul instructs Gentile believers to keep Mosaic Laws, outside the four things listed in Acts 21:25. Which is exactly my point. So I am not "openly arguing for self-contradictory things".

I listed things like the Ten Commandments, the two greatest commandments, and the things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:19-21, which are all part of the Mosaic Law, so you keep wanting to add parts of the Mosaic Law in accordance with what Paul has instructed while still trying to use Acts 21:24-25 to say that Gentiles should only keep those four things and no other part of the Mosaic Law, which is self-contradictory. Likewise, Titus 3:2-5 lists things that are against the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, Paul also taught Gentiles to repent from sin and the Mosaic Law is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20).

Peter in Acts 15:6-11 says why the Gentile believers were not insttructed to keep the bulk of the Mosaic Law.

In Acts 15:10-11, verse 11 clarifies that the ruling in verse 10 was in regard to salvation by grace rather than salvation by circumcision. In Acts 15:1, there was a group of men from Judea who were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. In Acts 15:5, they were opposed by a group of Pharisees from among the believers who said that it is necessary to circumcise Gentiles and order them to keep the Law of Moses, but this was not in order result in their salvation.

In Acts 15:6-7, Peter said that Cod chose that by his mouth Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which means that Peter saying that Gentiles were hearing and believing the Gospel is the same as saying that they were repenting and obeying the Mosaic Law. In Acts 15:8-9, Peter said that God who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit as he did us, and he made no distinction between them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Again, in Romans 2:25-29, the Spirit cleansing our hearts refers to a Gentile living in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 23:23 that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so everything that Peter argued in Acts 15:6-9 leading up to the ruling in verse 10 was in support of the group of Pharisees in Acts 15:5 and against the group from Judea in Acts 15:1.

In addition, in Acts 15:12-18, they quoted prophesies in regard to the Gentiles who are called by God's name being included into Israel, which again is in support of obeying the Law of Moses, so no one there was arguing that Gentiles shouldn't obey the Law of Moses, but rather they were making a ruling about the means of becoming saved by grace rather than by circumcision. So once they ruled in favor of the group in Acts 15:5 that Gentiles should become circumcised and ordered to obey the Law of Moses, it then became an issue that it would be overwhelming for new believers to order them to keep all of the Law of Moses, so in order to avoid making it too difficult for them, they started them off with four things with the expectation that they would continue to learn about how to obey Moses over time by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogue (Acts 15:19-21).

 

[Soyeong]

I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions.

Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so to suggest that he broke is to suggest the he sinned and therefore disqualified himself as our Savior. It is ok for someone to say that they must have misunderstood John 5 because they know it is not saying that Jesus sinned, and that would be a better response than to try to use John 5 to claim that he did sin.

Consider this from John 5:

Now in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Gate, there is a pool which in [a]Hebrew is called [b]Bethesda, having five [c]porticoes. 3 In these porticoes lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, limping, or [d]paralyzed.[e] 5 Now a man was there who had been [f]ill for thirty-eight years. 6 Jesus, upon seeing this man lying there and knowing that he had already been in that condition for a long time, *said to him, “Do you want to get well?” 7 The sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I am coming, another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus *said to him, “Get up, pick up your pallet and walk.” 9 Immediately the man became well, and picked up his pallet and began to walk.

Now it was a Sabbath on that day. 10 So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, “It is a Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet."

Are the Jews correct? Is it not permissible to carry a pallet on the Sabbath. Well, Jeremiah (17:21), at least, does not think that it is:

This is what the Lord says: “Take care for yourselves, and do not carry any load on the Sabbath day or bring anything in through the gates of Jerusalem. 22 You shall not bring a load out of your houses on the Sabbath day nor do any work, but keep the Sabbath day holy, just as I commanded your [j]forefathers.

Some of God's laws appear to conflict with each other, such as when God commanded priests to rest on the Sabbath, but also commanded priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that they were forced to sin by breaking one of the two commands no matter what they chose to do, but that the lesser command was never intended to be understood as preventing the greater command from being obeyed. This is why Jesus said that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why defended his disciples as being innocent (Matthew 12:5-7). This is also way it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath or why it is lawful to get an ox or a child out of a ditch on the Sabbath, and so forth.

Some Pharisees through that it is unlawful to work on the Sabbath and that healing is work, therefore it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath. However, we are also commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves and it would not be doing that to refuse to heal them on the Sabbath, and no command was intended to be understood as preventing the greatest two commandments from being obeyed, which is why Jesus ruled that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath. While it is not breaking the Sabbath for a priest to make an offering, it would be breaking the Sabbath if they then decided to plow a field, so the type of work and the reason for doing it is relevant.

 

[expos4ever]

In regard to Romans 2:13-14 it is only doers of the Mosaic Law who will be justified,

I do not believe the text says precisely this. Here is the relevant stuff:

For all who have sinned [j]without the Law will also perish [k]without the Law, and all who have sinned [l]under the Law will be judged [m]by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers [n]of the Law who are [o]righteous before God, but the doers [p]of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have [q]the Law [r]instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having [s]the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,

Given the complete context, not to mention numerous texts where Paul clearly shows that Gentiles are not subject to the Law of Moses, things are not as simple as you are representing. Let me explain.

Paul clearly believes, as should anyone who is familiar with the Scriptures, that the Law of Moses is a law for Jews only. After all, he says in verse 14 that the gentiles do not have the law. Your analysis overlooks the admittedly subtle distinctions between the Law of Moses that Jews are subject to and this instinctively known version of the "law" that Gentiles obey.

It is perhaps not obvious what the complete distinction entails, but surely we know that the Gentiles do not instinctively know about the very detailed specifics of food laws, festival observances, etc. To suggest otherwise is to expect us to believe that God magically dictates these very specific rules into the minds of Gentiles worldwide. And that, I suggest, is absurd.

So while Gentiles are indeed justified by doing what a "law" requires, it cannot be the Law of Moses. Sure, one can indeed argue that God enables Gentiles to "instinctively" understand the general principles that undergird the Law of Moses, this idea that Gentiles obey the Law of Moses really makes no sense for the reason I have just explained - it requires that God magically teaches Gentiles about what the details of festival observances and the minutae of food laws.

Remember: Paul elsewhere makes it abundantly clear that Gentile are not subject to the Law of Moses. To wit, from just one chapter ahead:

Where then is boasting? It has been excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also?

This text, by itself, makes it abundantly clear that whatever "law" the Gentiles instinctively obey per Romans 2, it cannot be the the Law of Moses.

 

[John Mullally]

Ignoring the issue will not cause it to go away, so please clearly state whether you think the list is exhaustive or not because it is self-contradictory for you to be trying to pick both.

In Roman 2:13-15, Paul said that Gentiles are by nature doers of the Mosaic Law even though they do not have it and show that the work of the law is written on there hearts which their conscience also bears witness to, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. So Paul was not saying that Gentiles should just follow their conscience, but that Gentiles should be justified by being doers of the Mosaic Law and that their conscience bears witness that it is written on their hearts, which is in accordance with Ezekiel 36:26-27 and Jeremiah 31:33. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16), and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those with uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Mosaic Law.


To suggest that there are moral portion of the Mosaic Law is to suggest that it is moral to disobey the other portions, however, there is no example in the Bible of disobedience to the Mosaic Law being considered to be moral. Rather, morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of His laws are inherently moral laws.

Our conscience part of our fallen nature, so it is not perfect, which is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:3 that even though he was not aware of anything against himself he was not justified. So our conscience helps us to live in accordance with the Mosaic Law, but it does not replace it, and therefore is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. Our conscience is capable of warning us when our spiritual condition is in danger, but it is not the Mosaic Law, and needs to be informed by it in order to function correctly.

In Romans 14, there are weak Christians whose conscience is not informed in a mature way, where their conscience won't let them do what they really would be free to do, so again our conscience does not replace the Mosaic Law. Someone's conscience can be so misinformed that their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19), where both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). So the first way to destroy the work of conscience is to misinform it where you don't give it the Mosaic Law and the second way is to silence it when it speaks. In 1 Timothy 4:2, Paul spoke about a wounded or seared conscience, and a good indicator of this is if someone doesn't feel convicted about continuing to do what God has revealed in His law to be sin.

So then do you think that Romans 3 contradicts Romans 2:13?

In Revelation 14:12, all of those who have faith in Jesus are those who kept God's commands, so only the doers of God's commands have faith in Jesus and are justified by the same faith, which is why Paul said that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, our faith does not abolish our need to obey the Mosaic Law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you seek to abolish rather than uphold it by faith. Paul also denied in Romans 4:1-5 that we can earn our justification as a wage, so there must be reasons other than earning our justification as a wage that our justification requires us to be doers of the Mosaic Law, such as faith and love. Not even Jesus earned his justification by obeying the Mosaic Law because it was never given as a mean of earning our justification as a wage.

So then do you think that what Paul said in Acts 21:24-25 contradicts what he said in Romans 2:14?

I listed things like the Ten Commandments, the two greatest commandments, and the things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:19-21, which are all part of the Mosaic Law, so you keep wanting to add parts of the Mosaic Law in accordance with what Paul has instructed while still trying to use Acts 21:24-25 to say that Gentiles should only keep those four things and no other part of the Mosaic Law, which is self-contradictory. Likewise, Titus 3:2-5 lists things that are against the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, Paul also taught Gentiles to repent from sin and the Mosaic Law is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20).

In Acts 15:10-11, verse 11 clarifies that the ruling in verse 10 was in regard to salvation by grace rather than salvation by circumcision. In Acts 15:1, there was a group of men from Judea who were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. In Acts 15:5, they were opposed by a group of Pharisees from among the believers who said that it is necessary to circumcise Gentiles and order them to keep the Law of Moses, but this was not in order result in their salvation.

In Acts 15:6-7, Peter said that Cod chose that by his mouth Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which means that Peter saying that Gentiles were hearing and believing the Gospel is the same as saying that they were repenting and obeying the Mosaic Law. In Acts 15:8-9, Peter said that God who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit as he did us, and he made no distinction between them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Again, in Romans 2:25-29, the Spirit cleansing our hearts refers to a Gentile living in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 23:23 that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so everything that Peter argued in Acts 15:6-9 leading up to the ruling in verse 10 was in support of the group of Pharisees in Acts 15:5 and against the group from Judea in Acts 15:1.

In addition, in Acts 15:12-18, they quoted prophesies in regard to the Gentiles who are called by God's name being included into Israel, which again is in support of obeying the Law of Moses, so no one there was arguing that Gentiles shouldn't obey the Law of Moses, but rather they were making a ruling about the means of becoming saved by grace rather than by circumcision. So once they ruled in favor of the group in Acts 15:5 that Gentiles should become circumcised and ordered to obey the Law of Moses, it then became an issue that it would be overwhelming for new believers to order them to keep all of the Law of Moses, so in order to avoid making it too difficult for them, they started them off with four things with the expectation that they would continue to learn about how to obey Moses over time by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogue (Acts 15:19-21).

You still have not given me any quotes from Paul addressed to Gentile believers that reference keeping Mosaic Law other than the four things listed in Acts 15:29 (and again referenced in Acts 21:25).

Fifteen years after the Jerusalem Decree (Acts 15:23-29), in Acts 21:24-25 Paul states the he does not instruct Gentile believers to keep Mosaic Law outside of the rules stated in Acts 21:25. Obviously, Paul opposes your doctrine Judaizers - Wikipedia.