Matthew 5:17-20 and Dispensationalism

food4thought · Feb 4, 2020

Guojing said:
What I felt the most interesting was that the resurrected Christ Jesus did not tell the 11 that the Law has been finally nailed to the cross.

Interesting.

Many Christians believed that the new covenant of grace happened either at the cross when Jesus said "it is finished" and the temple veil tearing down, or at Acts 2 after the Holy Spirit and Pentecost.

I tend to think the church began with the first Spirit indwelt believers, and that would be John 20:22.

But as far as you can tell, every Jew, including Peter, James, John still continue keeping the Law of Moses throughout Acts.

Can you document this for me a little?

What do you think of this puzzle?

If true, I would think they were just slow to let go of their Jewish roots. They were all Jews, after all.

food4thought · Feb 4, 2020

ViaCrucis said:
Jesus didn't come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill it; He did not come to abolish the Prophets, but to fulfill their words.

Agree.

This isn't about dispensations, but covenants.

This is semantics in my mind. Call it dispensation (as Paul does at times), call it covenants (as other writers do)… the end result is a change in how we relate to God, always by grace through faith on the basis of Jesus' substitutional death, burial, and resurrection. What changes is the content of faith.

Jews were to observe the precepts of Torah under the Covenant God made with them at Mt. Horeb through Moses. Jesus, in teaching here, isn't teaching to depart from Torah, and speaks in very harsh terms those who would turn children from God's precepts, just as He condemned those who betrayed God's precepts by their "traditions".

Agree.

Christ also says, at the Last Supper, that He establishes a new covenant in His blood. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says that if there is a new covenant, then there is an old covenant, and the old covenant no longer applies. Under the new covenant, made with both Jew and Gentile in and through Christ--His suffering, death, resurrection, et al--the old covenant no longer is in operation for those of faith. It's why St. Peter could be told, "Get up and eat" in the vision he was given, though alluding to the Gentiles, it is precisely the showing forth of the Gentiles' acceptance that makes plain that a new order has been established by Jesus.

So the force of His statement in Matthew 5:17-20 is not for the church... am I understanding you correctly?

The non-applicability of the Torah is not the abolition of the Torah, but rather the fulfilling of the Torah's purpose. Which St. Paul says is that of a school teacher, the Torah's purpose was to point to and lead to Christ. The giving of the covenant in Sinai served to point to Christ. With the coming of Christ the purpose for which these things were given have been accomplished.

Agree.

Torah is not abolished, but fulfilled. The reason for its existence, Jesus, has come to pass. And with Him the old things have given way to the new, that by His death and resurrection there is a new order, the advent of the new which has its fullness at His return when the dead are raised and God restores all things

Agree.

(a new heavens and a new earth, the Age to Come),

Being pre-millennial, I would disagree with that minor point. The new heavens and new earth will come, but I believe there will be a physical reign of Christ from the throne of David on earth first. I am sure we can agree to disagree on that, and not start a whole new discussion and derail the thread a bit. Feel free to comment on it, and I will not attempt to rebut.

but is here in part: For the Messiah has come and taken His throne as the King, at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come again as judge of the living and the dead. Just as foretold by Daniel, the Son of Man was taken up into the heavens before the Ancient of Days and given everlasting dominion.

Agree.

And so we are, in present, in the now and not yet of the everlasting kingdom; the kingdom came through the Christ, and taking His seat at the right hand of the Father He lives and reigns as King of kings and Lord of lords, and He exercises His dominion through His Church called to preach the forgiveness of sins in His name, to make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, to be a holy nation, loving and serving one another and our neighbors. The Lord reigns, not like the kings of this fallen age, by way of violence and fear, but by love, mercy, and humility of the cross; in the victory of His resurrection which is for us and the whole world. Christ is risen, and life wins.

Agreed, and AMEN!!!

-CryptoLutheran

God bless you,
Michael

Bruce Leiter · Feb 4, 2020

food4thought said:
Greetings! Welcome! Here is the Scripture I would like to discuss:

Matthew 5:17-20 NASB "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (18) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (19) "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (20) "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Note that Jesus has the entire Law and prophets in view here. Note also that He says we are not to "annul" even "the least of these commandments", nor are we to teach others to do so. Again, He has the entire Law and prophets in view. It is an inescapable fact that the people Jesus was directing this teaching to were to obey the entirety of the Law and prophets, and teach others to do so. There is no way around that fact. I've tried really hard to find one, believe me.

Yet it is also an inescapable fact that the Apostles taught that we were not bound by the Mosaic Law, but that we were not under the Law (Acts 15; Galatians). I don't think you need me to post more Scriptures to support that point, but I can if you wish.

The answer to this dilemma is found in Dispensationalism, and nowhere else I am aware of. To the best of my knowledge, Dispensationalism explains that this teaching was either, 1) for the Millennial Kingdom, or 2) this teaching was directed only to ethnic Israel. Either way, this teaching of Jesus is not DIRECTLY applicable to the predominantly Gentile church during this dispensation. Not saying it is of no value to the church (as some slanderously accuse dispensationalists of saying!), but that it's intended audience was Jews under the Law and/or Kingdom Age believers.

If someone could explain how to understand this passage, without minimizing the import of Jesus' words, in another way I would be happy to hear it.

God bless you;
Michael

Michael, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is for all believers, since in Matthew 5:1, he gathers his disciples to hear him, and at the end of Matthew 7, the crowds have come to listen to him. However, your question goes to the heart of how to interpret the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

The way I understand it, dispensationalism completely separates the two parts of the Bible by saying that the Old is for the Jews and the New for Christians.

Instead, the Reformed faith, which I believe to be the best interpretation of Scripture, says that there is continuity and discontinuity between the testaments. The discontinuity involves the fact that the outward form of the laws like the external food, sacrificial, and commands regulating justice were all for the nation of Israel. On the contrary, the intentions and principles of the laws continue into the New Testament for the international church.

I'll give you a couple examples. In Leviticus 11, God commands Israel to eat clean foods and avoid unclean ones. The church need not follow the food law, which was nailed to Jesus' cross, but the principle of this passage is that we must overcome spiritual uncleanness in our lives through Jesus' death. Also, the easiest example is the many commands to sacrifice animals; of course, Jesus' onetime sacrifice to atone for our sins fulfills all those commands. And we need to continue confessing the sins that remain in us and to seek God's continuing cleansing from them as his forgiven church.

I hope that I have helped you sort this question out and that it has opened your Bible reading and listening up to greater possibilities for spiritual growth.

food4thought · Feb 4, 2020

Bruce Leiter said:
Michael, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is for all believers, since in Matthew 5:1, he gathers his disciples to hear him, and at the end of Matthew 7, the crowds have come to listen to him. However, your question goes to the heart of how to interpret the relationship between the Old and New Testaments.

What covenant was in operation when Christ gave the sermon on the mount?

The way I understand it, dispensationalism completely separates the two parts of the Bible by saying that the Old is for the Jews and the New for Christians.

I think that would be an accurate statement, but know that I am still exploring all that dispensationalism teaches, and am not familiar with all of the details. I am not in full agreement with everything dispensationalism teaches so far (I am seeking to see if there are good reasons for what they teach on those subjects). I find myself seeing this as you state, though. The Old Covenant was for national Israel, and is now obsolete (as the author of Hebrews so eloquently put it), the New Covenant is for all people, Jew and Gentile alike

Instead, the Reformed faith, which I believe to be the best interpretation of Scripture, says that there is continuity and discontinuity between the testaments. The discontinuity involves the fact that the outward form of the laws like the external food, sacrificial, and commands regulating justice were all for the nation of Israel. On the contrary, the intentions and principles of the laws continue into the New Testament for the international church.

I understand, but disagree. James says that the Law of Moses is a unit that cannot be divided (James 2:10). Therefore, IMO, trying to say some of the Law is still applicable is a mistake. True, many OC commands are reiterated in the NC, but that is as far as it goes. The NT is what is binding on Christians, not the OT. Therefore things like the Sabbaths, festivals, penalties, sacrifices, etc. are not binding on Christians not because they are different parts of the Law, but because they are not reiterated in the NT. Hope this helps you understand my position.

I'll give you a couple examples. In Leviticus 11, God commands Israel to eat clean foods and avoid unclean ones. The church need not follow the food law, which was nailed to Jesus' cross, but the principle of this passage is that we must overcome spiritual uncleanness in our lives through Jesus' death. Also, the easiest example is the many commands to sacrifice animals; of course, Jesus' onetime sacrifice to atone for our sins fulfills all those commands. And we need to continue confessing the sins that remain in us and to seek God's continuing cleansing from them as his forgiven church.

I see that as reading the NT into the OT. These are true principals, and they are stated in the NT, but it was not the intended meaning of the OT laws. With VERY few exceptions, when an OT law or prophecy is quoted in the NT, it is quoted in a literal sense. What Jesus did was explain that the Law was not only concerned with our outward actions, but also with the heart. Thus anger was the precursor to murder, lust to adultery, etc. That was the true meaning of the Law... the heart/mind was just as important as the outward observance. This was also taught plainly in the OT, but the oral traditions warped the Law and led the Scribes and Pharisees astray.

I hope that I have helped you sort this question out and that it has opened your Bible reading and listening up to greater possibilities for spiritual growth.

Yes, it has helped me understand the Reformed position better, and understanding other viewpoints better is a good thing.

God bless you;
Michael

Guojing · Feb 4, 2020

food4thought said:
Interesting.

Can you document this for me a little?

If true, I would think they were just slow to let go of their Jewish roots. They were all Jews, after all.

When the ascended Christ gave the "Great Commission" in Matt 28 to the 11, he stated

20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

So not only did Jesus NOT tell them that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross, he also REMINDED them to obey everything he commanded them, which includes Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 10:5.

So Peter was correct when he was confused in Acts 10 and told God

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.

and Cornelius

28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile.

And the Jewish believers in Acts were

And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, Acts 22:12

20 Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: Acts 21:20

The view held by many Christians: that the Law was nailed at the crucifixion was a tad premature. No one preached that in Acts. Even by the time Acts 15 arrived, it was only agreed that the Gentiles who believe do not have to keep the Law.

Only after Paul was raised, then the ascended Christ revealed to him that the Law was nailed to the cross, for everyone.

Daniel Marsh · Feb 4, 2020

food4thought said:
Greetings! Welcome! Here is the Scripture I would like to discuss:

Matthew 5:17-20 NASB "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (18) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. (19) "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (20) "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Note that Jesus has the entire Law and prophets in view here. Note also that He says we are not to "annul" even "the least of these commandments", nor are we to teach others to do so. Again, He has the entire Law and prophets in view. It is an inescapable fact that the people Jesus was directing this teaching to were to obey the entirety of the Law and prophets, and teach others to do so. There is no way around that fact. I've tried really hard to find one, believe me.

Yet it is also an inescapable fact that the Apostles taught that we were not bound by the Mosaic Law, but that we were not under the Law (Acts 15; Galatians). I don't think you need me to post more Scriptures to support that point, but I can if you wish.

The answer to this dilemma is found in Dispensationalism, and nowhere else I am aware of. To the best of my knowledge, Dispensationalism explains that this teaching was either, 1) for the Millennial Kingdom, or 2) this teaching was directed only to ethnic Israel. Either way, this teaching of Jesus is not DIRECTLY applicable to the predominantly Gentile church during this dispensation. Not saying it is of no value to the church (as some slanderously accuse dispensationalists of saying!), but that it's intended audience was Jews under the Law and/or Kingdom Age believers.

If someone could explain how to understand this passage, without minimizing the import of Jesus' words, in another way I would be happy to hear it.

God bless you;
Michael

That text would prove there are
Dispensations

food4thought · Feb 4, 2020

Guojing said:
When the ascended Christ gave the "Great Commission" in Matt 28 to the 11, he stated

20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

So not only did Jesus NOT tell them that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross, he also REMINDED them to obey everything he commanded them, which includes Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 10:5.

That is a conundrum... I'll have to look more closely at that.

So Peter was correct when he was confused in Acts 10 and told God

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.

and Cornelius

28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile.

And the Jewish believers in Acts were

And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, Acts 22:12

20 Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: Acts 21:20

I just see these as the disciples being slow to let go of their roots. The disciples were always slow to understand (just like the rest of us can be).

The view held by many Christians: that the Law was nailed at the crucifixion was a tad premature.

Paul says it was nailed to the cross. That kind of "nails down" the timing of when this occurred

.

No one preached that in Acts. Even by the time Acts 15 arrived, it was only agreed that the Gentiles who believe do not have to keep the Law.

Didn't Paul preach that from the beginning (that the Gentiles were not under the Law, hence Acts 15)?

Only after Paul was raised, then the ascended Christ revealed to him that the Law was nailed to the cross, for everyone.

Are you referring to Paul's stoning?

Guojing · Feb 4, 2020

food4thought said:
That is a conundrum... I'll have to look more closely at that.

I just see these as the disciples being slow to let go of their roots. The disciples were always slow to understand (just like the rest of us can be).

Paul says it was nailed to the cross. That kind of "nails down" the timing of when this occurred .

Didn't Paul preach that from the beginning (that the Gentiles were not under the Law, hence Acts 15)?

Are you referring to Paul's stoning?

As I have, the resurrected Jesus never told them anything has changed regarding the Law of Moses.

So I don't see how anyone can think that they were slow to let go, slow to understand, unless of course they are anticipating revelation, assuming that because they understood everything about Paul. they assume that the 12 must have also known.

As for your final paragraph, Paul was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, James Peter and John was fine with him preaching that gospel to the Gentiles, where the Law of Moses was effectively dead to Gentiles.

However, there was still the gospel of the circumcision which was given to the 11 apostles to continue preaching to the Jews. In that gospel, everything Jesus said in the 4 Gospels continue to apply.

Galatians 2 has the details.

food4thought · Feb 4, 2020

Guojing said:
As I have, the resurrected Jesus never told them anything has changed regarding the Law of Moses.

So I don't see how anyone can think that they were slow to let go, slow to understand, unless of course they are anticipating revelation, assuming that because they understood everything about Paul. they assume that the 12 must have also known.

As for your final paragraph, Paul was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, James Peter and John was fine with him preaching that gospel to the Gentiles, where the Law of Moses was effectively dead to Gentiles.

However, there was still the gospel of the circumcision which was given to the 11 apostles to continue preaching to the Jews. In that gospel, everything Jesus said in the 4 Gospels continue to apply.

Galatians 2 has the details.

I see what you are saying, but doesn't this passage prove they were all preaching the same gospel?

1 Corinthians 15:1-11 NASB Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, (2) by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. (3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (4) and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (5) and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (6) After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; (7) then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; (8) and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (9) For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (10) But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. (11) Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

God bless you;
Michael

food4thought · Feb 4, 2020

Guojing said:
When the ascended Christ gave the "Great Commission" in Matt 28 to the 11, he stated

20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

So not only did Jesus NOT tell them that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross, he also REMINDED them to obey everything he commanded them, which includes Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 10:5.

Hi again, Guojing. I looked into this a little. From what I can tell from the Gospel of Matthew, from chapters 1-12 Jesus is dealing with the nation in presenting to them the Kingdom. In chapter 12, though, the leaders of the nation rejected Him and blasphemed the Holy Spirit by saying that Jesus was empowered by Satan, not God. From this time onward (chapters 13-28), Jesus began to deal differently with the crowds, but His disciples were privy to His teaching (note that He appeared to His disciples after the resurrection, not the nation). So what, you might say? Well, I think the answer to your point is found in making a distinction in Jesus' teachings before and after this point in the Gospel. So when He said "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20), He was referring to what He had taught them after chapter 12 (I found some confirmation on this from The Bible Knowledge Commentary, which is dispensational, on Matthew 13). Not completely sure about this, but it does make sense to me. Let me know what you think, brother.

God bless you;
Michael

food4thought · Feb 4, 2020

I will be limited in what I can post the next 3 days because I will be working 12 hour shifts. Not going to have anything but my phone, so any post of length will have to wait until the weekend. Hope God blesses you all;
Michael

Guojing · Feb 4, 2020

food4thought said:
I see what you are saying, but doesn't this passage prove they were all preaching the same gospel?

1 Corinthians 15:1-11 NASB Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, (2) by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. (3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (4) and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (5) and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (6) After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; (7) then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; (8) and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (9) For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (10) But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. (11) Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

God bless you;
Michael

Peter in Acts 2 and 3 was not telling the Jews that Jesus died for their sins.

He was telling them Jesus died because THEY put him on the cross. But God raised him from the dead as proof that he is the Son of God (Acts 2:23-24, Acts 3:15)

You understand the difference? Peter preach the cross as a murder indictment to the Jews. They are to repent from that horrific act and accept him once again as the Son of God (Acts 2:36)

That is very far from what Paul was preaching in 1 Cor 15:1-4

Guojing · Feb 4, 2020

food4thought said:
Hi again, Guojing. I looked into this a little. From what I can tell from the Gospel of Matthew, from chapters 1-12 Jesus is dealing with the nation in presenting to them the Kingdom. In chapter 12, though, the leaders of the nation rejected Him and blasphemed the Holy Spirit by saying that Jesus was empowered by Satan, not God. From this time onward (chapters 13-28), Jesus began to deal differently with the crowds, but His disciples were privy to His teaching (note that He appeared to His disciples after the resurrection, not the nation). So what, you might say? Well, I think the answer to your point is found in making a distinction in Jesus' teachings before and after this point in the Gospel. So when He said "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20), He was referring to what He had taught them after chapter 12 (I found some confirmation on this from The Bible Knowledge Commentary, which is dispensational, on Matthew 13). Not completely sure about this, but it does make sense to me. Let me know what you think, brother.

God bless you;
Michael

That sounds ad-hoc and arbitrary to me. There was indeed a change in the ministry, Jesus stopped offering the physical kingdom to the Jews after Matthew 12.

But to me, it was more to put the entire nation under ignorance, so by the Law of Moses regarding sin of ignorance (Leviticus 5:17-18), God could legitimately grant Jesus's request at the cross, to forgive the nation for they know not what they were doing.

Thus, God the Father gave them a one year extension of that kingdom program, as stated in the parable of the barren fig tree in Luke 13:6-9

If I follow your argument, if one separate like that for Matthew, how are they going to do the same separation for Mark, Luke and John?

Soyeong · Feb 5, 2020

food4thought said:
Hi again, Soyeong. Thanks for the reply. I wanted to focus on this part of your response because it is at the heart of how we see Acts 15 differently. I am not denying that the oral law existed, or that it was what Jesus was rebutting throughout much of the Gospels. But here in Acts 15, the issue at hand was the actual Law of Moses, not the traditions. I looked it up in the Greek, and it undeniably says "the Law of Moses". Luke was a gentile, and he would know that gentiles would almost certainly not understand the distinction between the Scriptures and the traditions, yet he clearly says "the Law of Moses", not the traditions. Why would the Holy Spirit confuse the issue? The way it is written it is hard for me to imagine that Luke had anything other than the actual Torah in mind when he wrote this. Can you help me understand why Luke and the Holy Spirit would confuse the issue on such a monumental point?

God bless you;
Michael

Hello,

I don't disagree with what the Greek in Acts 15:5 says, however, the people speaking in that verse considered the oral law to be passed down by Moses, so they had a very different concept of what it meant to obey the Law of Moses than most Christians. A Gentile who was consented to becoming circumcised was becoming a Jewish proselyte and agreeing to live as a Jew according to all of their oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences, and doing all of that in order to become justified.

Luke had intimate knowledge of Judaism, so I do not find the argument that he was a Gentile to be persuasive, and quite frankly I think he would have found interpreting Acts 15 as ruling against obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God to be completely absurd. In Acts 15:21, he expected that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses every Sabbath in the synagogues, which implies that Gentiles were already keeping the Sabbath.

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he would have still taught full obedience to it by example even if he had said nothing, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all of the nations before the end would come (Matthew 24:12-14). The same is true of Acts 2:38 when Peter told his audience to repent for the forgiveness of sins and in Romans 15:18-19 when Paul's Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed. In Acts 15:7, Peter said that God chose by his mouth the Gentiles would hear the Gospel and believe. For Gentiles, it is about looking at what Jesus taught by word and by example and wanting to become part of that, so it is bizarre for Gentiles to want to become his follower while not delighting in following the Mosaic law.

So it wouldn't make sense to think that Luke intended his audience to understand Acts 15:10 as ruling against Gentiles believing the Gospel. Sin is the transgression of the Mosaic Law (1 John 3:4), so clearly there needs to be a distinction telling Gentiles to repent from their sins in accordance with believing the Gospel and what they were ruling against telling Gentiles to do in Acts 15:10.

The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who refuse to submit to God's law. In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. After all, the Mosaic Law was given by God and the Spirit is God, so it is the Law of the Spirit, so it wouldn't make sense to interpret the Spirit as leading us to reject the Father's commands.

food4thought · Feb 5, 2020

Soyeong said:
The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who refuse to submit to God's law. In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. After all, the Mosaic Law was given by God and the Spirit is God, so it is the Law of the Spirit, so it wouldn't make sense to interpret the Spirit as leading us to reject the Father's commands.

Hi again, Soyeong. Sorry I can't reply to your whole post, I am using my phone. This section can represent your continued assertion that God's commands cannot be changed.

In Genesis 9, God states that man can eat any kind of animal. So, was Moses going against the command of God when he limited the kind of meat man could eat? Comparing God's covenant with Noah, and God's covenant with Moses and the Israelites, we see that God can and does change his commands to mankind when he gives a new covenant. Therefore, I see no problem with God altering his commands in the New Testament. Just a thought for you to consider.

God-bless you;
Michael

food4thought · Feb 5, 2020

Guojing said:
If I follow your argument, if one separate like that for Matthew, how are they going to do the same separation for Mark, Luke and John?

It was something that just occurred to me after you posted. And I did say that I wasn't entirely certain about it, and I'll have to do more research before I can say one way or the other whether there is a similar break in the other Gospels.

God-bless you;
Michael

Soyeong · Feb 6, 2020

food4thought said:
Hi again, Soyeong. Sorry I can't reply to your whole post, I am using my phone. This section can represent your continued assertion that God's commands cannot be changed.

In Genesis 9, God states that man can eat any kind of animal. So, was Moses going against the command of God when he limited the kind of meat man could eat? Comparing God's covenant with Noah, and God's covenant with Moses and the Israelites, we see that God can and does change his commands to mankind when he gives a new covenant. Therefore, I see no problem with God altering his commands in the New Testament. Just a thought for you to consider.

God-bless you;
Michael

Hello,

Please explain how the way to act in accordance with God's holiness can change while God maintains a holiness that is eternal and unchanging. God can certainly reveal an aspect of how to act in accordance with His holiness that He had not previously revealed, but will never reveal an aspect of His holiness that is contrary to what He has previously revealed. It doesn't make any sense to interpret God as flip flopping back and forth about whether it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, but rather it has always been an abomination.

In Genesis 7:2, Noah was given instructions about what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to tell the difference, and in 8:20, he knew to offer a clean animal, so he must have already been giving instructions in that regard, which means that he already knew which animals were and were not permissible to eat. In Genesis 6:21, Noah was told to eat the same food as the other animals while on the Ark for obvious reasons, so Genesis 9 was the removal of that condition, not granting anything brand new.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so under the New Covenant we are still prohibited from eating unclean animals and the eternal way to act in accordance with God's eternal holiness has not changed.

food4thought · Feb 6, 2020

If I follow your argument, if one separate like that for Matthew, how are they going to do the same separation for Mark, Luke and John?

DISREGARD

God bless you;
Michael

food4thought · Feb 6, 2020

@Guojing

I am abandoning my theory... it just doesn't work, especially for John. I have another idea, but I don't want to be as hasty to post it as I was for the other one lol.

To be continued

food4thought · Feb 6, 2020

Soyeong said:
Hello,

Hi, Soyeong, hope this day finds you well. I brought my laptop to work, but I don’t have internet access; so I’m experimenting with using word to type out my replies, hoping it won’t cause any formatting problems. Sorry in advance if it causes any glitches. Let me know if it does.

Please explain how the way to act in accordance with God's holiness can change while God maintains a holiness that is eternal and unchanging. God can certainly reveal an aspect of how to act in accordance with His holiness that He had not previously revealed, but will never reveal an aspect of His holiness that is contrary to what He has previously revealed. It doesn't make any sense to interpret God as flip flopping back and forth about whether it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, but rather it has always been an abomination.

What does holiness mean? Holiness is being set apart for/dedicated to the Lord’s use. When the word holiness is applied to God, it refers to His separateness, otherness, Him being high above and distinct from His creation. This includes His perfect morality.

When looking at the Law of Moses, I believe that many of the laws were given as a way to command Israel to not do the things that the surrounding nations were doing. Holiness, in these instances, was found in obedience to God’s commands as they relate to being separate from the religious/civil practices of those nations. Therefore, we get commands about what not to wear, what not to eat, and such. Most of those foreign religious/civil practices have gone the way of the Dodo, so those laws are “obsolete”. God’s morality has never changed, thus the Law’s stance on idolatry, sexual morality, love of God and neighbor, sobriety, and such ARE reiterated in the New Covenant. This is how I see it. The Law of Moses is a unit, though, so it’s not like we keep part of the Law… we do not keep the Law of Moses at all, we are to follow the commandments of God given to us in the New Covenant. Hope this helps.

In Genesis 7:2, Noah was given instructions about what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to tell the difference, and in 8:20, he knew to offer a clean animal, so he must have already been giving instructions in that regard, which means that he already knew which animals were and were not permissible to eat. In Genesis 6:21, Noah was told to eat the same food as the other animals while on the Ark for obvious reasons, so Genesis 9 was the removal of that condition, not granting anything brand new.

Actually, eating of meat at all was a new thing. God gave Adam and his descendants only plant life to eat (Genesis 1:29, Genesis 3:18). Giving them the freedom to eat meat was a change in the way man would obey God under the Noahic Covenant. Even if your reasoning above is sound, which I am not conceding, it is clear that God’s commands do get changed from covenant to covenant. God does not change, how man is to obey God does change. For us, holiness is being obedient to and set apart for the revealed will of God. Thus, under the Law of Moses, holiness was found in being obedient to the revealed will of God found in that Law. Under the New Covenant, holiness is being obedient to the revealed will of God under that covenant.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so under the New Covenant we are still prohibited from eating unclean animals and the eternal way to act in accordance with God's eternal holiness has not changed.

Again, I see many of the laws as relating to being separate from the religious/civil practices of the people in the region, and these practices have largely disappeared, so the laws on these subjects are obsolete. The Law of Moses as a whole still stands as our tutor to bring us to Christ, as Paul says (Galatians 3:23-25), and it is profitable for us to know the Law, as Paul also states (2 timothy 3:16-17). Our relation to God (righteousness, holiness), however, is based entirely on the New Covenant. Otherwise, why would Paul say this:

Galatians 5:2-3 NASB Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. (3) And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

Circumcision is commanded by the Law, no way around that as far as I can see.

And Paul also says this:

Galatians 3:10-14 NASB For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." (11) Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." (12) However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM." (13) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"— (14) in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The bolded part clearly shows that the Law here referred to is the Torah, not the traditions.

God bless you, Soyeong;

Michael

Matthew 5:17-20 and Dispensationalism

Loving truth

Loving truth

A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love

Loving truth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Loving truth

Well-Known Member

Loving truth

Loving truth

Loving truth

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Loving truth

Loving truth

Well-Known Member

Loving truth

Loving truth

Loving truth

Similar threads