Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[expos4ever]

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.

Exactly. And you may be interested in the material I just posted. Paul's arguments about the law are admittedly sometimes subtle and can give the appearance of self-contradiction. For example, consider his statement at the end of Romans 3 where he says we "uphold" the law. I believe that, in context, this is indeed a reference to the Law of Moses, but I do not believe he means to uphold in the sense of endorsing its continued application, but rather in the sense of its having played a significant role in God's plan of redemption.

On balance, however, and considering all the scriptural evidence, I suggest it abundantly clear that Paul, and Jesus for that matter, believe the Law comes to an end at the cross.

 

[Soyeong]

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.

I mean if you ignore all of the times that I have repeatedly done that, then I can see how you might think that. But then you want to include Paul instructing Gentiles to keep parts of the Mosaic Law, such a in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Titus 3:2-5, which completely undermines that argument that you are trying to make. Likewise, Paul instructed Gentiles to refrain from sin and the Mosaic Law is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20), so that is a reference to it. I completely agree with Paul's stance against the Judaizers and have never supported salvation as the result of circumcision.

 

[John Mullally]

I mean if you ignore all of the times that I have repeatedly done that, then I can see how you might think that. But then you want to include Paul instructing Gentiles to keep parts of the Mosaic Law, such a in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Titus 3:2-5, which completely undermines that argument that you are trying to make. Likewise, Paul instructed Gentiles to refrain from sin and the Mosaic Law is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20), so that is a reference to it.

I referenced Galatians 5:19-21 earlier in Post 290. That passage like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Titus 3:2-5 that you reference are vital as Paul lists sins that Gentile believers are to avoid at all cost. But in none of those passages is the Mosaic Law referenced. Sin can be understood without knowledge of the Mosaic Law via conscience (Romans 2:14) - a requirement for an exhaustive list is unnecessary.

I completely agree with Paul's stance against the Judaizers and have never supported salvation as the result of circumcision.

You don't agree with what Paul says concerning Gentile believers in Acts 21:24-25.

 

[Soyeong]

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.

I used to think as you do that the Mosaic Law is only for Jews and that Gentiles are not subject to it, so I can understand why people think that, though I have since found that position to be fundamentally flawed, so I can no longer agree. For example, the Psalms express an extremely positive attitude towards the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct attitude towards the Mosaic Law, then we will share it, as Paul (Romans 7:22), and we will interpret the NT authors as though they had the same attitude towards it. For example, according to Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't uphold the truth of these words as Scripture without allowing them to shape our attitude of the Mosaic Law, and if we had the same attitude towards it as expressed in the Psalms, then we would want to have the delight of getting to obey it regardless of whether or not we were obligated to obey it. I experimented with interpreting the NT as though its authors were in complete agreement with the Psalms (which they were) instead of the attitude that is is a heavy burden that no one can bear and I found that it made much more sense and had much more continuity than I had given it credit for.

Another key issue in interpreting Paul is recognizing that he spoke about multiple different categories of law other than the Law of God, such as works of the law and the law of sin. For example, in Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-11. Likewise, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ with the law of sin and death. Again, in Romans 7:22, Paul delighted in obeying the Law of God, so verses that we interpret as referring to the Law of God should make sense for it to be something that he delighted in doing, for example, in Romans 7:5, Paul spoke about a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it would be absurd to think that Paul delighted in doing that, but rather it is the law of sin that does that. The problem is that people often don't bother to distinguish which law Paul is speaking about, which leads to interpreting him in a way that is a contradictory mess.

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 Gentles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is central to the Gospel message, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14), and which he commissioned his disciples to bring to the nations teaching everything that he taught them (Matthew 28:16-20), so Jesus fully intended the Mosaic Law to be taught to Gentiles in accordance with the Gospel and the promise. Furthermore, Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers by word and by example how to practice Judaism in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which means that if Paul taught against Gentiles following the Mosaic Law, then he taught against Gentiles being followers of Christ, which is contrary to the Gospel and the promise, so either than interpretation of Paul is wrong, or Gentiles would then need to pick between whether to follow Christ or Paul.

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.

In Romans 3:1, it says that Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God, so Gentiles not having the law refers to not have physical possession of a Torah scroll, so if a Gentile wanted to read one, then they had to go through the Jews to do it. Jews were the ones in charge of copying, maintaining, and teaching the Torah.

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with the Israelites, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai. In Joshua 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born, so Israel has always been inclusive of Gentiles who seek by faith to follow the God of Israel and walk in His way. There is not a separate law for Jews and Gentiles to obey. God's laws teaches us about how to act in accordance with His eternal nature and we should all seek by faith to act in accordance with God's eternal nature and to refrain from sin.

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.

Paul was not speaking about Gentiles by nature having knowledge of everything that the law contains, but that Gentiles by nature do what the law requires. This is because believing Gentiles have been given a new divine nature from and seek by faith to act in accordance with it in obedience to God's law by faith through the leading of the Spirit.

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.

I do not think that you raised a valid objection to my analysis of Romans 2:13-15, so I don't see a good reason to think that Romans 2:13 could refer to anything else other than the Mosaic Law, especially in light of Romans 2:25-29. There are not multiple different ways of becoming justified. If someone correctly understands a principle of the Mosaic Law, then they will take actions that are examples of that principle in obedience to it.

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.

So work of the law are of works, while he said that in Romans 3:31 that our faith does not abolish the Mosaic Law, but rather our faith upholds it, so he was coming in full support of Gentiles keeping the Law of Moses through faith. Do you seek to abolish the Mosaic Law or uphold it through faith? In other words, do you think that we should have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong through the Mosaic Law instead of leaning on our own understanding?

 

[Soyeong]

I referenced Galatians 5:19-21 earlier in Post 290. That passage like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Titus 3:2-5 that you reference are vital as Paul lists sins that Gentile believers are to avoid at all cost. But in none of those passages is the Mosaic Law referenced. Sin can be understood without knowledge of the Mosaic Law via conscience (Romans 2:14) - a requirement for an exhaustive list is unnecessary.

Those passages don't need to specifically mention the Mosaic Law in order for us to recognize that they lists of things in accordance with the Mosaic Law that Paul instructed Gentiles to do, and saying that those things are all in accordance with our conscience does not change that, especially when our conscience needs to be informed by the Mosaic Law in order to function correctly. Furthermore, people doing what is unholy is included in those lists and many people do not have their consciences bothers by doing what is unholy.

Romans 2:14 does not state that our conscience gives us any knowledge of the Mosaic Law, but that our conscience bears witness that the Mosaic Law is written on our heart. Sin is what God has revealed it to be through the Mosaic Law (Romans 3:20) and Gentiles should refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin.

You don't agree with what Paul says concerning Gentile believers in Acts 21:24-25.

I've given a valid interpretation of those verses which you have said nothing to challenge, so I agree with what Paul said in Acts 21:24-25, but I disagree with your interpretation of those verses because it is self-contradictory.

 

[LW97Nils]

I believe this to be a great teaching on the food laws:
https://www.dontperish.com/uploads/4/4/2/8/44282867/acts_10.m4a (keep in mind I support only this teaching from the website, most of his site has several false doctrines)

 

[Soyeong]

I believe this to be a great teaching on the food laws:
https://www.dontperish.com/uploads/4/4/2/8/44282867/acts_10.m4a (keep in mind I support only this teaching from the website, most of his site has several false doctrines)

Please summarize it.

 

[John Mullally]

Those passages don't need to specifically mention the Mosaic Law in order for us to recognize that they lists of things in accordance with the Mosaic Law that Paul instructed Gentiles to do,

Teaching something in accordance with both conscience and portions of the Mosaic Law, without referencing the Mosaic Law, is not teaching the Mosaic Law. This is true even though Paul is an expert on the Mosaic Law.

Governments can pass laws in accordance with portions of the Mosaic Law - but that does not make them Mosaic Law.

and saying that those things are all in accordance with our conscience does not change that, especially when our conscience needs to be informed by the Mosaic Law in order to function correctly.

Paul does not instruct the Gentile belivers to specifically keep the Mosaic Law (outside of that listed in Acts 21:25). You can say that Paul's passages to the Gentile believers you quoted in Post 304 (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Titus 3:2-5) are in accordance with a good conscience and portions of the Mosaic Law, but they are not the Mosaic Law, nor reference Mosaic Law - and thus Paul is not teaching the Mosaic Law.

Furthermore, people doing what is unholy is included in those lists and many people do not have their consciences bothers by doing what is unholy.

Born-again Gentile believers should have a functioning conscience.

Romans 2:14 does not state that our conscience gives us any knowledge of the Mosaic Law, but that our conscience bears witness that the Mosaic Law is written on our heart. Sin is what God has revealed it to be through the Mosaic Law (Romans 3:20) and Gentiles should refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin.

Romans 2:14 is saying that those who don't have knowledge of the law can fulfill it by keeping a good conscience. Gentile believers would also do well following Paul's instruction that you quoted in Post 304.

I've given a valid interpretation of those verses which you have said nothing to challenge, so I agree with what Paul said in Acts 21:24-25, but I disagree with your interpretation of those verses because it is self-contradictory.

You gave a valid interpretation of what specifically?

You say you don't agree with my interpretation of Acts 15:24-25 which I gave is in regard to Gentile believers and the Mosaic Law - that is the crux of my argument - what is your interpretation?

If Acts 21:24-25 (which agrees with Acts 15:23-29) is not putting bounds on the portions of the Mosaic Law Gentile believers have to keep, then where is that boundary set?

 

[John Mullally]

Exactly. And you may be interested in the material I just posted. Paul's arguments about the law are admittedly sometimes subtle and can give the appearance of self-contradiction. For example, consider his statement at the end of Romans 3 where he says we "uphold" the law. I believe that, in context, this is indeed a reference to the Law of Moses, but I do not believe he means to uphold in the sense of endorsing its continued application, but rather in the sense of its having played a significant role in God's plan of redemption.

On balance, however, and considering all the scriptural evidence, I suggest it abundantly clear that Paul, and Jesus for that matter, believe the Law comes to an end at the cross.

Romans is a bit tricky in that it seems to be addressed to Jewish Christians from the content of the letter. But its example of Gentiles are they are without the law. Even though no one is justified by the keeping the law, Jewish Christians practice it - I believe for conscience sake.

You write well. I prefer arguing Acts 21:24-25 as it is short powerful, and direct.

 

[Studyman]

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.

You are displaying the perfect example of the hypocrisy of the mainstream preachers of Jesus time.

This sick man, who couldn't even walk, was carried to this place promoted by the preachers of that time. Sick for 38 years. Trusting in the religion of the Pharisees to cure him, day after day after day. But no one would pick him up and carry him to the pool so that he could be healed. And when he tried to drag himself, someone else always beat him to it.

So Jesus comes along and heals this guy, and tells him, "pick up your bed and walk".

But you and the Pharisees accuse Jesus of Sinning against God, because you believe that God's commandment would require this man, once healed, to stay on the ground on his bed, until the Sabbath had passed.

Based on this.

Jer. 17: 23 But they obeyed not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, nor receive instruction. 24 And it shall come to pass, if ye diligently hearken unto me, saith the LORD, to bring in no burden through the gates of this city on the sabbath day, but hallow the sabbath day, to do no work therein;

That in this one sentence, you and the Pharisees preach to the world that God's Law forbids a person to walk, who had been crippled for 38 years, if he was healed on God's Sabbath. Or that a man couldn't get up and carry a backpack or bed roll home after God healed him.

The foundation of your preaching, being that the Pharisees were the obedient children of God, while Jesus obeyed not, neither inclined His ear, but made His neck stiff, that HE might not hear, nor receive instruction.

Although this religious implication is popular among "many" who call Jesus Lord, I am quite sure that God doesn't teach this about His Son in the Holy Scriptures HE inspired, nor about His Sabbath.

What if Jesus was the righteous obedient one, and it is you and the Pharisees who obeyed not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, nor receive instruction?

 

[Doug Brents]

I used to think as you do that the Mosaic Law is only for Jews and that Gentiles are not subject to it, so I can understand why people think that, though I have since found that position to be fundamentally flawed, so I can no longer agree.

So you take the wrong path, and say that it applies to both, instead of the correct path that Scripture says it applies to neither.

For example, the Psalms express an extremely positive attitude towards the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct attitude towards the Mosaic Law, then we will share it,

That would be correct, unless you consider the Scriptures that say the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses are no longer relevant for New Testament Christians.

as Paul (Romans 7:22), and we will interpret the NT authors as though they had the same attitude towards it.

Rom 7:22 says nothing about the Law of Moses.

For example, according to Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so we can't uphold the truth of these words as Scripture without allowing them to shape our attitude of the Mosaic Law,

Again, Psalm 1:1-2 says nothing of the Law of Moses. And even if it did, since the Psalms are part of the Old Testament, any reference in them to keeping the Old Covenant is also obsolete for the New Testament Christian.

and if we had the same attitude towards it as expressed in the Psalms, then we would want to have the delight of getting to obey it regardless of whether or not we were obligated to obey it.

If by “it” you were referring to the Law of God as opposed to the Law of Moses, you would be correct. However, reference to the Law of Moses is not found in the passages you have are citing.

I experimented with interpreting the NT as though its authors were in complete agreement with the Psalms (which they were) instead of the attitude that is is a heavy burden that no one can bear and I found that it made much more sense and had much more continuity than I had given it credit for.

Indeed they are in agreement. But only if you consider that the Law of God is greater than the Law of Moses, and is given in multiple installments.

Another key issue in interpreting Paul is recognizing that he spoke about multiple different categories of law other than the Law of God, such as works of the law and the law of sin. For example, in Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-11.

You are exactly right. The Law of Faith is the New Covenant, while the Law of works (works of the Law) is the Old Covenant.

Likewise, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ with the law of sin and death. Again, in Romans 7:22, Paul delighted in obeying the Law of God, so verses that we interpret as referring to the Law of God should make sense for it to be something that he delighted in doing, for example, in Romans 7:5, Paul spoke about a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death,

He is referrhere to the Law of Moses.

so it would be absurd to think that Paul delighted in doing that, but rather it is the law of sin that does that. The problem is that people often don't bother to distinguish which law Paul is speaking about, which leads to interpreting him in a way that is a contradictory mess.

There is nothing contradictory in Paul (or in any of God’s Word). All of what God is saying in these verses is that the Old Law (the Law of Moses) brings nothing but death, but faith in Christ brings life.

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 Gentles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is central to the Gospel message, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14),

The Gospel of Jesus in Matt 24:14 is not the Law of Moses.

and which he commissioned his disciples to bring to the nations teaching everything that he taught them (Matthew 28:16-20), so Jesus fully intended the Mosaic Law to be taught to Gentiles in accordance with the Gospel and the promise.

Again, you are reading your false preconceptions into Scripture. It is not the Law of Moses that will be taught to the Gentiles, but the Gospel of Christ (very different message).

Furthermore, Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6).

Indeed, walk sinlessly as He did. But not according to the Law of Moses, but according to the Law of faith.

So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers by word and by example how to practice Judaism in obedience to the Mosaic Law, which means that if Paul taught against Gentiles following the Mosaic Law, then he taught against Gentiles being followers of Christ, which is contrary to the Gospel and the promise, so either than interpretation of Paul is wrong, or Gentiles would then need to pick between whether to follow Christ or Paul.

Wrong. Paul taught that we, Jews and Gentiles alike, are free from the Law of Moses, and are now subject to the Law of Christ.

In Romans 3:1, it says that Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God, so Gentiles not having the law refers to not have physical possession of a Torah scroll, so if a Gentile wanted to read one, then they had to go through the Jews to do it. Jews were the ones in charge of copying, maintaining, and teaching the Torah.

Very true, right up to the time when the Apostles started writing what became the New Testament.

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with the Israelites, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai. In Joshua 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born, so Israel has always been inclusive of Gentiles who seek by faith to follow the God of Israel and walk in His way. There is not a separate law for Jews and Gentiles to obey. God's laws teaches us about how to act in accordance with His eternal nature and we should all seek by faith to act in accordance with God's eternal nature and to refrain from sin.

True, but elsewhere you are trying to slash that the Law of Moses is the only Law of God. That is false.

Paul was not speaking about Gentiles by nature having knowledge of everything that the law contains, but that Gentiles by nature do what the law requires. This is because believing Gentiles have been given a new divine nature from and seek by faith to act in accordance with it in obedience to God's law by faith through the leading of the Spirit.

No. This passage is talking about non-believing Gentiles who do what is in the Law of God. When non-believers keep oaths, give to the poor, help orphans and widows, speak truth, etc. they uphold the Law of God.

I do not think that you raised a valid objection to my analysis of Romans 2:13-15, so I don't see a good reason to think that Romans 2:13 could refer to anything else other than the Mosaic Law, especially in light of Romans 2:25-29. There are not multiple different ways of becoming justified. If someone correctly understands a principle of the Mosaic Law, then they will take actions that are examples of that principle in obedience to it.

You are correct that those passages are speaking of the Law of Moses. As we all know, when teaching a new concept, it is best to start with what the listener already knows and then progress into the new territory building on that foundation. That is exactly what Paul does, beginning the letter to the Jewish Christians in Rome with a discussion that they will understand; their obedience to the Law of Moses. But as he progresses through the letter, he shifts from obedience to the Law to obedience to Christ (which is not the same).

So work of the law are of works, while he said that in Romans 3:31 that our faith does not abolish the Mosaic Law, but rather our faith upholds it, so he was coming in full support of Gentiles keeping the Law of Moses through faith. Do you seek to abolish the Mosaic Law or uphold it through faith? In other words, do you think that we should have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong through the Mosaic Law instead of leaning on our own understanding?

Of course we are to rightly divide truth, and live by faith at the same time. That is what we are saying. The truth is that the Law of Moses is no longer the Law by which Christians live. We live by the Law of Christ which is written on the pages of the New Testament and in our hearts. There are too many passages of scripture that tell us that we are no longer bound to the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses for us to continue this debate about keeping the Law of Moses.

 

[Cornelius8L]

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.

Ok, knowing where you stand makes things easier for me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

These sentences just said that Peter is foolish, even though he has been a Jew his whole life. As you said, having the key to the kingdom means being able to correctly interpret the Torah, so he would have known how to eat the animals. The vision is to kill and eat because Peter was hungry at the time. With your remarks, Peter appears even more foolish x 3.

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".

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.

The original text is κοινὸν (koinon), meaning impure or profane, not common (Acts 10:14, 11:8) If κοινὸν (koinon) means clean animal, that just means Peter has never eaten meat at all in his life based on his statement.

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.

So in the vision, if clean animals represent both Jews and non-Jews, what do unclean animals represent?

"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 you're saying God doesn't have the power to cleanse an unclean animal? Has it ever been written that a clean animal that comes into contact with an unclean animal will become unclean? And when did it say that all the animals were in contact with each other? All of these were your ideas, because you must comply that unclean animals can't be eaten now.

 

[Cornelius8L]

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.

And since you follow the laws of Leviticus, do you also follow the law that says you have to offer sacrifices to be clean after giving birth in Leviticus 12?

For Jesus once said in Matthew 5:18 “For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Heaven and earth haven't disappeared, right? Did you follow the childbirth purification by making sacrifices?

 

[Soyeong]

Teaching something in accordance with both conscience and portions of the Mosaic Law, without referencing the Mosaic Law, is not teaching the Mosaic Law. This is true even though Paul is an expert on the Mosaic Law.

So according to you, someone could teach Gentiles to obey the content of everything commanded in the Mosaic Law and as long as they didn't make a reference to the Mosaic Law, then they were not teaching the Mosaic Law and would therefore not be doing what Paul was speaking against in Acts 21:24-25?

No, again Paul does not instruct the Gentile belivers to specifically keep the Mosaic Law (outside of that listed in Acts 21:25). Paul's passages to the Gentile believers you quoted in Post 304 (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and Titus 3:2-5) bolster the conscience without mentioning the Mosaic Law.

There is no rule that if someone needs to make a reference to the Mosaic Law in order to be teaching the Mosaic Law, bur rather, if I am teaching the concept that "The Mosaic Law" refers to, then I am teaching the Mosaic Law. I don't see the sense in you trying to separate teaching a concept from teaching the word or phrase that refers to it. If you want to say that those verses are examples of Paul teaching parts of the Mosaic Law to Gentiles, but he was against referring to them as such, then I would agree with the former and scratch my head at the latter. Again Paul said nothing about following our conscience instead of the Mosaic Law, but rather our conscience bears witness that it is written on our hearts.

You keep on accusing me of being self-contradictory. I think it is because you believe that Paul is teaching them to keep the Mosaic Law even though he does not specifically command them to observe them. You think that the fact that what Paul commands them to do that which lines up with the Mosaic Law (which they are not taught - at least by Paul) is as good as telling them to keep the Mosaic Law. No, what he commands them to do also lines up with their own conscience. In addition, the Mosaic Law is full of Jewish Ceremonial traditions that Paul opposes Gentile believers keep throughout his epistles - I don't want to get off on that topic, thank you.

Born-again Gentile believers should have a functioning conscience.

Yes, teaching what the Mosaic Law instructs is teaching the Mosaic Law. If you say that Gentiles should do those four things from the Mosaic Law and nothing else, then that doesn't leave room for teaching Gentiles to obey anything that was commanded in the Mosaic Law, such as in the three passage that I cited, so it is contradictory to for you to try to use Acts 21:24-25 to limit which laws Gentiles should follow to just those four things while also saying that Gentiles should also follow other laws that were also commanded in he Mosaic Law If you want say that Paul was in favor of Gentiles obeying the Mosaic Law, but was not in favor of Gentiles referring to it as such except for those four things, then I'd agree with the former and wonder at the latter, through that would also be contrary to how you are trying to use Acts 21:24-25.

You granted that born again believers should fully functioning consciences in regard to not doing what is unholy, so a fully function conscience should not permit us to disobey anything that God has commanded, so pointing out that that what God has commanded are matters of conscience is redundant and does not alleviate the problem of you interpreting Acts 21:24-25 in a contradictory manner. It is contradictory to try to use Acts 21:24-25 to say that Gentiles should only obey those four things out of what God has commanded while also saying that there are other things that God has commanded that Gentiles should obey.

In addition, Paul never listed which laws he considered to be ceremonial and never even referred to that as being a category of law, so you have no grounds to interpret him as speaking against ceremonial laws. Furthermore, the laws that people are most commonly of the opinion that are ceremonial are in regard to holiness, so it is again contradictory to say that a fully functioning conscience does not lead us to do what is unholy while also speaking against following those laws.

Romans 2:14 is saying that those who don't have knowledge of the law can fulfill it by keeping a good conscience. Romans 2:15 says that such individuals show that requirements of the law are written on their hearts. There is nothing there about faulting Gentiles for not knowing the law.

In Romans 2:14, it notably does not say that Gentiles don't have knowledge of the Mosaic Law or that Gentiles can fulfill it by keeping a good conscience, but rather it says that Gentiles who do not have the Mosaic Law do by nature what it requires.

You gave a valid interpretation of what specifically?

You say you don't agree with my interpretation of Acts 15:24-25 which I gave is in regard to Gentile believers and the Mosaic Law - that is the crux of my argument - what is your interpretation?

If Acts 21:24-25 (which agrees with Acts 15:23-29) is not putting bounds on the portions of the Mosaic Law Gentile believers have to keep, then where is that boundary set?

I made the case that the four things in Acts 21:24-25 were not an exhaustive list of what Gentiles should obey out of what God has commanded, but a starting point in order to not make things too difficult for new believers, which was with the expectation that Gentiles would continue to learn how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 15:19-21). So in order to avoid overwhelming new believers who were unfamiliar with the Mosaic Law, they chose to have the same starting point and then teach the rest over time rather than require them to obey everything on day one. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and they did not put any boundary on Gentiles following Christ.

If Acts 21:24-25 is not an exhaustive list, then it does not limit which laws Gentiles should follow as you are trying to use those verses to do, so your interpretation of those verses requires you to treat it as being an exhaustive list where Gentiles should only obey those four things out of what God has commanded. However, the Bible clearly instructs Gentiles to do other things that God has commanded, so it is clearly not an exhaustive list, which means that your interpretation can't be correct.

 

[John Mullally]

So according to you, someone could teach Gentiles to obey the content of everything commanded in the Mosaic Law and as long as they didn't make a reference to the Mosaic Law, then they were not teaching the Mosaic Law and would therefore not be doing what Paul was speaking against in Acts 21:24-25?

Paul did not teach them to obey everything commanded in the Mosaic Law.

There is no rule that if someone needs to make a reference to the Mosaic Law in order to be teaching the Mosaic Law, bur rather, if I am teaching the concept that "The Mosaic Law" refers to, then I am teaching the Mosaic Law. I don't see the sense in you trying to separate teaching a concept from teaching the word or phrase that refers to it. If you want to say that those verses are examples of Paul teaching parts of the Mosaic Law to Gentiles, but he was against referring to them as such, then I would agree with the former and scratch my head at the latter. Again Paul said nothing about following our conscience instead of the Mosaic Law, but rather our conscience bears witness that it is written on our hearts.

There is a ruling that says Gentile believers are not commanded to observe the Mosaic Law other then 4 things listed. Perhaps you should read it - it is Acts 21:24-25.. And no you have not addressed it, other that to say it cannot be possible. Jesus gave a new commandment and Paul provided several directives to Gentile believers. I know you like exhaustive rules, but the Apostles were opposed to converting Gentiles believers into Jews. That is why I think the list in Acts 21:25 was kept so short.

 

[Soyeong]

So you take the wrong path, and say that it applies to both, instead of the correct path that Scripture says it applies to neither.

There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being God's way and many verses that describe it is the narrow way to eternal life, so it is not the wrong way, but rather I should be spreading the Gospel by encouraging others to walk in it in accordance with the promise

That would be correct, unless you consider the Scriptures that say the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses are no longer relevant for New Testament Christians.

It is interpreting the NT with an incorrect attitude towards the Mosaic Law that is incompatible with the attitude expressed towards it in the Psalms that leads people to incorrectly interpret the the NT as saying that the Law of Moses is no longer relevant for NT Christians.

Rom 7:22 says nothing about the Law of Moses.

In Romans 7:22, it says "Law of God" and of the Law of Moses is not the Law of God, then whose does it belong to? Give the context, I don't see any room for interpreting the Law of God as referring to something other than the Law of Moses, especially when delighting in obeying the Law of Moses is in accordance the view repeatedly expressed in the Psalms. In addition, the Law of Mose is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

Again, Psalm 1:1-2 says nothing of the Law of Moses. And even if it did, since the Psalms are part of the Old Testament, any reference in them to keeping the Old Covenant is also obsolete for the New Testament Christian.

There is no question that the Hebrew word "Torah" refers to the Law of Moses, but by all means please make the case for what else you think that David was referring to. The NT authors quoted or alluded to the OT thousands of times in order to support what they were saying and to show that they had not departed from it, so they certainly consider the OT to still be authoritative and did not consider it to obsolete for NT Christians. Im particular, the Psalms are the OT book that is most quoted in the NT.

If by “it” you were referring to the Law of God as opposed to the Law of Moses, you would be correct. However, reference to the Law of Moses is not found in the passages you have are citing.

God commanded the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 5:31-33), so I don't see grounds for you to consider it to be something other than the Law of God.

Indeed they are in agreement. But only if you consider that the Law of God is greater than the Law of Moses, and is given in multiple installments.

What God has commanded is not greater than what God has commanded.

You are exactly right. The Law of Faith is the New Covenant, while the Law of works (works of the Law) is the Old Covenant.

The Law of Moses is the Law of faith, especially because the law of the New Covenant is the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 31:33). For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing is something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the Mosaic Law of justice, mercy and faith. In Numbers 5:6, disobedience to the Mosaic Law is described as breaking faith. In Hebrews 3:18-19, the disobedience of the Israelites was equated with unbelief. In Habakkuk 2:4, the righteous shall live by faith, and in Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Mosaic Law, so living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to it.

In Acts 5:32, the Spirit has been given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:2 denies that works of the law are part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to obedience to the Mosaic Law or to anything else that God has commanded.

In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul contrasted works of the law with the Book of the Law. In Deuteronomy 28, it lists the blessing for relying on the Book of the Law and the curse for not continuing to rely on everything in it, so those who instead rely on works of the law come under the curse for not relying on the Book of the Law. Paul also associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 that the righteous shall live by faith with a quote from Leviticus 18:5 that the one who obeys the Mosaic Law will attain life by it, so the righteous who are living by faith are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy, so the way to rely on God is by relying on what He has instructed, while to deny that what God has instructed is of faith by interpreting the works of the law that are not of faith as referring to the Law of Moses, you are denying the faithfulness of God.

He is referrhere to the Law of Moses.

In Romans 7:7, Paul said that the law is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, such as with the law against coveting, so he was clearly speaking about the Law of Moses. In Romans 7:5, Paul spoke about a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so this is referring to a law that is sinful, which therefore is not referring to the same law as verse 7. In Romans 7, Paul said that the Law of God is holy, righteous, and good and that he wanted to do good, but that there was a law of sin that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to, so Paul did not describe the law of sin as being the Law of Moses, but rather he contrasted it with the Law of Moses.

There is nothing contradictory in Paul (or in any of God’s Word). All of what God is saying in these verses is that the Old Law (the Law of Moses) brings nothing but death, but faith in Christ brings life.

I agree that there is nothing contradictory in Paul or in any of God's Word, through people can incorrectly interpret God's word in contradictory manner, such as when they interpret God's word as speaking against obeying God's word. The Mosaic Law is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so it is contradictory to have faith in God's word made flesh instead of having faith in God's word. Rather, the Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to have faith in Christ, which brings life.

The Bible is abundantly clear that the Mosaic Law brings life while it is refusing to obey that brings nothing but death. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey and obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse. In Deuteronomy 32:46-47, the Mosaic Law is our very life. In Proverbs 3:18, she is a tree of life for all who take hold of her. In Proverbs 6:23, the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life. Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His way that he might know Him and Israel too, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the Mosaic Law, which is eternal life (John 17:3). In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments. In use 10:25-28, Jesus said that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments. In Revelation 22:14, those who obeyed God's commandments are given the right to eat from the Tree of Life, so they don't lead to death.

The Gospel of Jesus in Matt 24:14 is not the Law of Moses.

Im Matthew 4:15-23 it describes the Gospel of the Kingdom as the message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which is the same Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24:12-14 would be proclaimed to the Gentiles, which and again repenting from our disobedience to the Mosaic Law as a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom. What God has command is straightforwardly the law of God's Kingdom.

Again, you are reading your false preconceptions into Scripture. It is not the Law of Moses that will be taught to the Gentiles, but the Gospel of Christ (very different message).

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his disciples how to practice Judaism by living in obedience to the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so that is what he was instructing his disciples to teaching to the nations by teaching the nations everything that he taught them. Again, Matthew 4:15-23 describes the Gospel of Christ as calling for repentance ad obedience to the Mosaic Law.

Indeed, walk sinlessly as He did. But not according to the Law of Moses, but according to the Law of faith.

The Law of Moses is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20), so to say that Jesus live sinlessly is to say that he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to it, which means that to follow his example of refraining from sin is to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law. There is no sense in trying to follow Christ's example by rejecting it. Again, the Law of Moses is the Law of Faith. Do you think that we should have faith in God to correctly divide between right and wrong through the Law of Moses instead of leaning on our own understanding?

Wrong. Paul taught that we, Jews and Gentiles alike, are free from the Law of Moses, and are now subject to the Law of Christ.

Christ spent his ministry teaching how to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so there is no sense in thinking that the Law of Christ is something other than or contrary to what Christ taught, and if Paul taught that Gentiles are free from what Christ taught, then again Gentles need pick between whether to follow Christ or Paul. However, God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said in parallel statement that he was not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, and the Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God, so he equated the Law of Christ with the Law of Moses.

Very true, right up to the time when the Apostles started writing what became the New Testament.

The writing of the NT did not change the truth of what it means for Jews to have the oracles of God and for Gentiles to be without the law.

True, but elsewhere you are trying to slash that the Law of Moses is the only Law of God. That is false.

The Bible never refers to different sets of the Law of God that are mutually exclusive.

No. This passage is talking about non-believing Gentiles who do what is in the Law of God. When non-believers keep oaths, give to the poor, help orphans and widows, speak truth, etc. they uphold the Law of God.

The book of Romans was not written to non-believing Gentiles, but to believing Gentiles. In any case, it is evidently clear that non-believing Gentiles are not doing by nature what the Mosaic Law requires. Non-believers can sometimes happen to do something that was commanded by the Mosaic Law, but that is a far cry from the Mosaic Law being written on their hearts. The Mosaic Law bring written on our hearts comes with the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33), of which only believers are part.

You are correct that those passages are speaking of the Law of Moses. As we all know, when teaching a new concept, it is best to start with what the listener already knows and then progress into the new territory building on that foundation. That is exactly what Paul does, beginning the letter to the Jewish Christians in Rome with a discussion that they will understand; their obedience to the Law of Moses. But as he progresses through the letter, he shifts from obedience to the Law to obedience to Christ (which is not the same).

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so you don't have good grounds for claiming that obedience to Christ is not the same or for establish exactly in what ways they are different.

Of course we are to rightly divide truth, and live by faith at the same time. That is what we are saying. The truth is that the Law of Moses is no longer the Law by which Christians live. We live by the Law of Christ which is written on the pages of the New Testament and in our hearts. There are too many passages of scripture that tell us that we are no longer bound to the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses for us to continue this debate about keeping the Law of Moses.

You rejecting the word of truth is neither rightly dividing it nor living by faith. The truth is Christ was not in disagreement with the Father, but rather he taught us to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so the Law of Moses is the Law of Christ that is written on the pages of the NT and in our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

In 2 Peter 3:15-17, it says that Paul is difficult to under stand, that those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his words to their own destruction, and to be careful not to be carried away by the error of lawless men, so we can be confident that when Paul is correctly understood that he never Mae the error of speaking against the Mosaic Law. There are too many passages of Scripture that people have twisted to their own destruction by trying to make them out to be speaking against obeying the Law of Moses. It is clear that you should not interpret God's word as speaking against God's word.

In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh, who are enemies of God, who refuse to submit to the Law of God, and again the Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God. If there was a king who gave laws to govern the conduct of his citizens and someone was going around speaking against obeying what the king had commanded, then would this person be a servant or an enemy of the king? Consider whether you want to be a servant or and enemy of God.

 

[Soyeong]

Paul did not teach them to obey everything commanded in the Mosaic Law.

Whether or not Paul taught them to obey everything commanded in the Mosaic Law is another issue, so please answer my question. If you are arguing that someone could teach Gentiles to obey the content of everything commanded in the Mosaic Law without doing what Paul was speaking against in Act 21:24-25 as long as they didn't make a reference to the Mosaic Law, then Acts 21:24-25 is not speaking against Gentiles doing anything that was commanded in the Law of Moses, so again you are contradicting yourself.

Paul did teach Gentiles not to sin and the Law of Moses is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20).

There is a ruling that says Gentile believers are not commanded to observe the Mosaic Law other then 4 things listed. Perhaps you should read it - it is Acts 21:24-25.. And no you have not addressed it, other that to say it cannot be possible. Jesus gave a new commandment and Paul provided several directives to Gentile believers.

I've read Acts 21:24-25, which is why I question your interpretation of it being a ruling that Gentiles are not commanded to observe the Mosaic Law other than those four things. I have addressed it multiple times by explaining why I think that is is not possible for your interpretation to be correct, which you continue to ignore. You're being very obvious about trying to sneak the Mosaic Law in the back door by referring to it as Paul providing several directives. The fact that Paul provided "several directives" to Gentiles believers that required them to do other things that are also commanded in the Mosaic Law means that Paul did not consider himself to have ruled that Gentiles are not commanded to observe the Mosaic Law other than those four things. Clearly there were other part of the Mosaic Law that he thought Gentiles should obey, so your interpretation of Acts 21:24-25 is incorrect.

I know you like exhaustive rules, but the Apostles were opposed to converting Gentiles believers into Jews. That is why I think the list in Acts 21:25 was kept so short.

I did not say that I like exhaustive rules, but you should address the issue of whether or not Acts 21:24-25 was intended to be an exhaustive list instead of avoiding that issue like the plague. I have said nothing to support converting Gentiles into Jews so I agree that there were reasons for doing that which he was opposed to, but what I have been saying is that Gentile believers should seek to follow Christ's example of obedience to the Mosaic Law in accordance with what God has commanded and that God's word should not be interpreted as speaking against God's word.

 

[expos4ever]

Paul did teach Gentiles not to sin and the Law of Moses is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20).

It is not that simple. In Romans 3, if you follow the structure of the entire chapter, you realize Paul is giving us a history it is an evolving story. This is important. Up to the end of verse 20, Paul is describing what was the case in the past. And indeed, in the past, the law of Moses did give the Jew knowledge of sin.

But we are no longer in the past. Note how verse 21 begins with "but now...."

 

[Soyeong]

Ok, knowing where you stand makes things easier for me.

These sentences just said that Peter is foolish, even though he has been a Jew his whole life. As you said, having the key to the kingdom means being able to correctly interpret the Torah, so he would have known how to eat the animals. The vision is to kill and eat because Peter was hungry at the time. With your remarks, Peter appears even more foolish x 3.

No, it is nothing foolish about following Jewish tradition and someone can be wrong without being foolish. Peter has reason to think that he shouldn't eat the clean animals because they had become common from being in contact with the unclean animals and he had reason to think that he shouldn't eat the unclean animals because God had commanded against it, so he was legitimately confused about what God was wanting him to do. Peter certainly knew how to eat animals and didm't need the keys to the kingdom for that.

The original text is κοινὸν (koinon), meaning impure or profane, not common (Acts 10:14, 11:8) If κοινὸν (koinon) means clean animal, that just means Peter has never eaten meat at all in his life based on his statement.

Yes, according to Strong's, it does mean common. The issue is that there are different Greek words that are not used interchangeably by the Bible that can both be translated into English as "unclean", "impure", or "defiled", which can cause equivocation by treating both words as though they are referring to the same thing. Yes, it can be accurate to say that both words refer to something that is impure, but they refer to very different types of impurity that are not interchangeable. Case in point, someone can take a word that refers to an impurity not following a man-made ritual purity law and confuse it with the impurity that comes from eating unclean animals and then confuse Jesus speaking against the impurity that comes from the man-made law as speaking against the impurity that comes from eating unclean animals. So I prefer to use the word "common" to try to avoid that confusion.

Again, I've not claimed that "koinon" means "clean animal", and in fact it does not, though Peter thought that clean animals could gain the status of koimo by coming in contact with unclean animals. Peter had eaten clean animals, just not those that had come in contract with unclean animals.

So in the vision, if clean animals represent both Jews and non-Jews, what do unclean animals represent?

Incorrectly identifying the clean animals represented incorrectly identifying the Gentiles. The unclean animals were there to convey the status of being koinon to the clean animals. If the unclean animals do represent something, then it is not stated. Visions should not be reinterpreted to mean something other than the stated interpretation.

So you're saying God doesn't have the power to cleanse an unclean animal? Has it ever been written that a clean animal that comes into contact with an unclean animal will become unclean? And when did it say that all the animals were in contact with each other? All of these were your ideas, because you must comply that unclean animals can't be eaten now.

I did not speak about what God has the power to do. God is holy, so He distinguishes between what is holy and what is common. God did not command anything about an unclean animal coming in contact with a clean animal causing it to become common, which is why it is a man-made ritual purity law. It does state that the sheet was lowered by its four corners. Whatever is on top of a sheet that is lowered by its four corners tends to get clustered together in the middle, so it is a reasonable inference that the animals were clustered together in the middle of the sheet. If the clean animals hadn't been in contact with the unclean animals, then Peter would not have objected to eating them when he was told to kill and eat.

God's word says not to eat unclean animals, so we should abide by it. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, it warns not follow a prophet or dreamer who speaks against obeying the Law of Moses, even if they perform signs and wonders, so God did not leave himself any room to do away with any of His laws through means of a vision, and if Peter had gone around telling people that he had a vision that means that means that we can now eat unclean animals, then the people who rejected what he said would have been correctly acting in accordance with what God had instructed them to do.

 

[Soyeong]

It is not that simple. In Romans 3, if you follow the structure of the entire chapter, you realize Paul is giving us a history it is an evolving story. This is important. Up to the end of verse 20, Paul is describing what was the case in the past. And indeed, in the past, the law of Moses did give the Jew knowledge of sin.

But we are no longer in the past. Note how verse 21 begins with "but now...."

What is sinful is against God's nature and God's nature is eternal, which is why all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), he was not saying that the Mosaic Law is how we knew what sin was in the past and we are no longer in the past, especially because he later affirmed in Romans 7:7 that God's law is how we know what sin is.

In Romans 3:21-22, the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ for all who believe. This has always been the case, but it is now being made manifest.