Matthew 5:17-20 and Dispensationalism

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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 have been looking at the final instructions left by Jesus at the end of the different Gospels and the beginning of Acts. The question of what Jesus meant in Matthew 28:20 might be answered by this verse in Acts:

Acts 1:3 NASB To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.​

The risen Jesus met with the disciples over the course of 40 days, and taught them many things regarding the Kingdom of God. It is possible that these post resurrection teachings were what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 28:20. What do you think?

I also was intrigued by this passage:

Luke 24:25-27 NASB And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! (26) "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" (27) Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.​

Now, I find it hard to believe that in the course of this study Jesus did not cover Isaiah 53 and some of the many OT passages that speak of the gentiles coming to faith. It seems to me that, just as I said before, the Apostles were just slow to digest the inclusion of the gentiles in the Kingdom. I find it unlikely that Jesus did not teach them of this during His resurrection ministry. Also remember what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:11, which says that all the Apostles were preaching the same gospel. It seems pretty clear to me that the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Christ was the only gospel being preached, at least by the time that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, and almost certainly earlier than that (as Paul's proclaimed anathema in Galatians 1:6-9 was surely not directed at the other real Apostles).

I am going to take a closer look at Acts 2-3 now, and see if the gospel preached there was the same. I suspect that all the aspects of Paul's gospel can be found in them.

God bless you;
Michael
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

Good morning, Soyeong, I hope this day finds you blessed. I wanted to go back and reply to your whole post, so here goes...

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.

I was not referencing Luke's ignorance, but the ignorance of the gentiles who would be reading his books (Luke and Acts). As I mentioned in a previous post, the command to be circumcised was a part of the Mosaic Law, so the Apostles were definitely not saying that the whole Law of Moses was to be obeyed.

As for Acts 15:21... what would the teaching be in a synagogue? It would most certainly be on how to obey the Law according to the traditions! Also, from the little I know about 1st century Jewish customs, wouldn't uncircumcised gentiles definitely NOT be welcome there, because they were unclean and would defile the synagogue? So how were the uncircumcised gentiles to attend the synagogues?!? What I believe James was saying was that Moses was preached everywhere, and if someone were to want to obey the Law of Moses, they could become a proselyte and go to a synagogue.

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).

That passage in 1 Peter was speaking of following His example of enduring sufferings.

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,

The gospel Jesus was preaching was that the Kingdom was at hand, meaning that the King was there.

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).

Interesting... I'll have to look into that passage.

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.

Repentance from unbelief and obedience to the New Covenant.

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.

Strange, I thought the gospel was the substitutional death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Please tell me you are not believing a different gospel?!?

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.

1 John 3:4 says "sin is lawlessness"... it means that sin is not following the commands of God as revealed to them. In the New Covenant, it is not the Mosaic Law we follow.

The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Under the Old Covenant.

In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who refuse to submit to God's law.

In the larger context of the book, it is clear that the church is not under the Mosaic Law (Romans 5-8), but are to follow the Holy Spirit and obey the commands of the New Covenant.

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.

I see what you are saying, but disagree with your logic here. The Law of the Spirit is contrasted with the Law of Moses in Romans 8:1-3 (see also Romans 7:4-10).

May God richly bless you, Soyeong;
Michael
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,773
1,309
sg
✟214,847.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi again, Guojing.

I have been looking at the final instructions left by Jesus at the end of the different Gospels and the beginning of Acts. The question of what Jesus meant in Matthew 28:20 might be answered by this verse in Acts:

Acts 1:3 NASB To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.​

The risen Jesus met with the disciples over the course of 40 days, and taught them many things regarding the Kingdom of God. It is possible that these post resurrection teachings were what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 28:20. What do you think?

I also was intrigued by this passage:

Luke 24:25-27 NASB And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! (26) "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" (27) Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.​

Now, I find it hard to believe that in the course of this study Jesus did not cover Isaiah 53 and some of the many OT passages that speak of the gentiles coming to faith. It seems to me that, just as I said before, the Apostles were just slow to digest the inclusion of the gentiles in the Kingdom. I find it unlikely that Jesus did not teach them of this during His resurrection ministry. Also remember what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:11, which says that all the Apostles were preaching the same gospel. It seems pretty clear to me that the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Christ was the only gospel being preached, at least by the time that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, and almost certainly earlier than that (as Paul's proclaimed anathema in Galatians 1:6-9 was surely not directed at the other real Apostles).

I am going to take a closer look at Acts 2-3 now, and see if the gospel preached there was the same. I suspect that all the aspects of Paul's gospel can be found in them.

God bless you;
Michael

God bless you too Michael. As I may have stated before, the death burial and resurrection was indeed preached by both the 12 in early Acts, as well as Paul.

The fundamental difference was that in Peter's account in Acts 2 and 3, it was preached as a murder indictment. Remembering the promise of what the Gospel of Kingdom means to them, Peter and the other disciples continue to preach to Jews only, and offer them the same gospel of the Kingdom.

Jesus’s death and resurrection were used by Peter, not to illustrate the divine exchange as Paul did, but as the final proof that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, the promised Messiah.

In fact, not only did Peter not preach the divine exchange aspect of Jesus’s cruxifiction on the cross, I notice one constant theme he hammered to his Jewish listeners was that they were responsible for crucifying Jesus.

Examples were:
  1. Acts 2:36, where Peter says, "... Jesus, whom ye crucified ...."
  2. Peter also says in Acts 3:14-15, "But ye denied the Holy One ... and killed the Prince of life ...."
  3. Then in Acts 5:30 he says, "... Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."
  4. Finally Stephen, who also preached Peter's gospel, told the Jews in Acts 7:52, "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers ...."
I look forward to your analysis of Acts 2-3 and curious to see how you interpret what Peter was preaching.

I have learned something new recently, that will reconcile the common objection that many have raised to me, that the Matthew 28 told Peter and the others to preach to "all nations", surely that term must include Gentiles.

What I found out was this interesting verse in Acts 2:5

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Mark 13:10 reinforced the above point too

And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

These 2 passages may shed some light in what Jesus meant by "all nations" in what ended up as the most popular version of the GC used by churches, the Matthew version.

What Jesus meant by "all nations" does not mean Jews and Gentiles in all nations, rather its to the unbelieving Jews of "all nations".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
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.

Hello, no problem.

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.

The Israelites needed to be taught about who God is, how to walk in His ways, and how to grow in a relationship with Him, so the Mosaic Law was given for that purpose (Deuteronomy 10:12-22). God's ways are His character traits, and there are many others verses that also describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so the reason that God gave the law was not in order to teach the nations about who Israel is, but rather it was given to Israel in order to equip them to teach the nations about who God is. So none of God's laws were arbitrarily given, but rather they all had an intention about them to teach us about who God is and how to be a light and a blessing to the nations through testifying to them about who God is. In Deuteronomy 4:5-8, the intended reaction of the nations seeing Israel's obedience to the Mosaic Law was to marvel at how great and wise He is, so it was intended that the nations would see what God was doing through Israel and want to become part of that, which means that the law was intended to be used as a tool to evangelize the nations.

There would be no point in Israel being a light to the nations if there is no more substance to it than just showing the nations how different they are, so while holiness is being set apart, it is not about being different just for the sake of being different. All of those instructions for how to have a holy conduct teach us important things about His holiness and by following those instructions we are testifying about who God is. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do, so if we ought to have a holy conduct (1 Peter 1:16), then that is a moral issue. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's eternal holiness can't become obsolete unless God's eternal holiness first becomes obsolete. If the way to act in accordance with God's holiness or other character traits were to change when the New Covenant was made, then God's character traits would not be eternal, but rather according to Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following God's law.

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.

If Adam and Eve were permitted to kill animals for clothing after the Fall, then I don't see a good reason to think that they weren't also permitted to kill animals for food. Unclean animals tend to be predators and scavengers, which did not exist during the Fall, and Isaiah 11:8 predicts a time when an infant with play by the cobra's den, so there will be a time when conditions are returned to how they were in the Garden before the Fall when there were no predators. So there was something that changed in the nature of animals with the Fall that caused them to become unfit for eating and making offerings, which means that the division between clean and unclean animals goes back to the Fall and Genesis 9 was not the first time they were permitted to eat clean animals. I recognize that I am making some inferences that are not directly stated, but I think interpreting God as always being against eating unclean animals fits better with His eternal nature and makes much more sense than interpreting Him as flip flopping back and forth about whether it an abomination to do that.

If the way to act in accordance with God's holiness is straightforwardly based on God's holiness, not on any particular covenant, and the same goes for God's other character traits. God's holiness being eternal means that any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His holiness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under. Please explain how God's holiness can be considered to be eternal and unchanging if the way to act in accordance with His holiness can change from covenant to covenant.

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.

The law brings us to Christ because everything in it teaches us about who he is, how to walk as he walked, and how to grow in a relationship with him. Someone who disregarded everything their tutor taught them after they left would be missing the whole point of a tutor. Now that Christ has come we have a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His law in accordance with what he taught by word and by example. If you agree that NT Scriptures endorse the Mosaic Law in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then you should consider it to be part of the New Covenant and on which our relation to God is based.

Either there are are correct and incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised and Paul was only speaking against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2-3, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised (Acts 16:3) and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. However, I've made the point that the problem in Acts 15:1 was not with God's command, but with it being used for a purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it, so he was only speaking against becoming circumcised for incorrect reasons.

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

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so God's law is of faith. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law that was of works with a law that was of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so again God's law is of faith and Paul contrasted God's law with works of the law. In Galatians 3:10-14, Paul spoke about works of the law, which were not of faith and contrasted them with the Book of the Law, which is of faith. He associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law, while no one is justified before God by works of the law because they are not of faith in God.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Good morning, Soyeong, I hope this day finds you blessed. I wanted to go back and reply to your whole post, so here goes...

Hello again, it was a blessed day, thank you, I hope your day was blessed also. :)

I was not referencing Luke's ignorance, but the ignorance of the gentiles who would be reading his books (Luke and Acts). As I mentioned in a previous post, the command to be circumcised was a part of the Mosaic Law, so the Apostles were definitely not saying that the whole Law of Moses was to be obeyed.

My point about Luke's intimate knowledge of Judaism is why I don't believe the claim that he was a Gentile. It is possible to believe both that Gentiles should be become circumcised for correct reasons in accordance with the Mosaic Law, such for the purpose of eating the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:48) and that Gentile should not become circumcised for incorrect reasons, such as for the purpose of becoming justified.

As for Acts 15:21... what would the teaching be in a synagogue? It would most certainly be on how to obey the Law according to the traditions! Also, from the little I know about 1st century Jewish customs, wouldn't uncircumcised gentiles definitely NOT be welcome there, because they were unclean and would defile the synagogue? So how were the uncircumcised gentiles to attend the synagogues?!? What I believe James was saying was that Moses was preached everywhere, and if someone were to want to obey the Law of Moses, they could become a proselyte and go to a synagogue.

In Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbade Jews to visit or associate with Gentiles, which is not a law found anywhere in the Mosaic Law, so it is therefore a man-made law, not God's law. In Acts 18:4, it says that Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks, so it was not exclusive to Jews. If they had been ruling against the Gentiles obeying the Mosaic Law in Acts 15, then your interpretation of 15:21 is contrary to what they just ruled and doesn't make sense, especially if you also think that Galatians is warning Gentiles against obeying the Mosaic Law.

That passage in 1 Peter was speaking of following His example of enduring sufferings.

In 1 Peter 2:22, it also describes his example as committing no sin and there being no deceit in his mouth.

The gospel Jesus was preaching was that the Kingdom was at hand, meaning that the King was there.

While I agree, it is still also true that his Gospel involved calling people to repent from their sins and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is.

Repentance from unbelief and obedience to the New Covenant.

Paul also said in Romans 15:4 that writings of old were for our instruction, so that doesn't leave room for 15:18-19 to be exclusively speaking about a brand new set of instructions.

Jesus set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and the New Covenant does not involve rejecting the law that he taught by word and by example, but rather it still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33). In Acts 2, it does not say anything about the New Covenant having brand new instructions that redefine what sin is or there being any sort of confusion about what they were being told to do when they were being called to repent from their sins. Sin is against God's character, so it is based on who God is, not on any particular covenant.

Strange, I thought the gospel was the substitutional death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Please tell me you are not believing a different gospel?!?

In Matthew 4:17-23, it describes them as proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom by calling people to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was long before Christ's resurrection, though I would say that it is a different aspect of the same Gospel message. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we understand what Jesus accomplished in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and understand what it means for how we should therefore live our lives, then we will repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand and will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20).

1 John 3:4 says "sin is lawlessness"... it means that sin is not following the commands of God as revealed to them. In the New Covenant, it is not the Mosaic Law we follow.

Sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there was nothing that became sinful or ceased being sinful when the Mosaic Covenant was made or became obsolete. For example, Joseph knew that it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 before the Mosaic Covenant was made, it was a sin during it, and it still remains a sin after it has become obsolete. The actions that are sinful are in violation of God's character traits, so they are based on who God is, not on any particular covenant. If the way to act in accordance with God's character traits were to change when the New Covenant was made, then God's character traits would not be eternal.

Under the Old Covenant.

No, Ezekiel 36:26-27 is speaking in regard to the New Covenant.

In the larger context of the book, it is clear that the church is not under the Mosaic Law (Romans 5-8), but are to follow the Holy Spirit and obey the commands of the New Covenant.

I see what you are saying, but disagree with your logic here. The Law of the Spirit is contrasted with the Law of Moses in Romans 8:1-3 (see also Romans 7:4-10).

May God richly bless you, Soyeong;
Michael

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. Paul spoke about multiple separate categories of law, such as God's law, the law of sin, and works of the law, so it is important to correct determine which law he was speaking against in order to avoid making the mistake of misinterpreting him as teaching us to rebel against God's commands. For example, in Romans 7:25, Paul contrasted God's law with the law of sin, and in Romans 3:27, he contrasted a law that was of works with a law that is of faith, so if you interpret everything that Paul said about laws as if he were only speaking about the Mosaic Law, then you are guaranteed to misunderstand him.

In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's law, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive. If 7:5-6 were speaking about God's law, then that would mean that Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions to bear fruit unto death and in being held captive, which is absurd, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive. In Romans 7:7, Paul said that God's law is not sinful, but was given to reveal what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, but the law of sin stirs up sinful passions to bear fruit unto death, so it is sinful and causes sin to increase, so it is the opposite of the Mosaic Law. So verses that refer to a law that is sinful or causes sin to increase are referring to the law of sin, not the Mosaic Law, such as Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, 1 Corinthians 15:56, and Galatians 5:16-18. Furthermore, in Romans 8:1-3, Paul also contrasted the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin, so he was equating the Law of the Spirit with the Mosaic Law. After all, the Mosaic Law was given by God and the Spirit is God, so it is the Law of the Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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).......

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......l
The problem is neither claim is true.

The apostles did not say we are not bound by the Mosaic Law and Dispensationalism id not the only theology that reconciles the seeming conflict because there is no conflict.

If the reader of Acts and the epistolary pays attentions to the specifics then s/he will see there are two specified conditions pertaining to the annulment of the law: 1) the law is annulled only for the purposes of a) righteousness and b) justification and 2) the NT writers constantly appeal to the OT laws as standards for the NT-era ekklesia. Regarding the first, the abrogation of the law for righteousnes sor justification we read,

Romans 3:20 KJV
"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

Galatians 2:15-16
"We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;, nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."

Galatians 3:10-11
"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.' Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith."

Not sure where you get the idea Acts 15 annuls the law because the only mention of the law in that chapter has to do with circumcision.

If a study is done on the treatment of the law in the NT epistolary it will be discovered the law is holy, righteous, good, and spiritual. The law makes us aware of sin. Paul told Timothy, "we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully."

However, the law is not by faith.

And therein lies the problem and the reason it does not and cannot bring justification or righteousness.




Here's one of the rubs with the Dispensationalist way: the law itself states the law is applicable to all, both the Jew and the alien to Judaism.

Exodus 12:49 KJV
"One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you."

Leviticus 24:22
"There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God."

Numbers 9:14
"If a foreigner dwelling among you wants to observe the Passover to the LORD, he is to do so according to the Passover statute and its ordinances. You are to apply the same statute to both the foreigner and the native of the land."

Numbers 15:15
"As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the LORD."

So the law they say applies only to the Jew states quite plainly it applies to all. Conundrum. When the Jews translated the Tanakh into Greek they translated "qahal" into "ekklesia;" that is "assembly" into church." Apart from the command sin is not taken into account (Rom. 5:13) if the law is done away with in its entirety then there is no sin for which we must account and therefore there is no need for Christ. this is the logical end of Dispensationalism when all the NT says about the law is considered.

An example of the OT laws being applied in the NT ekklesia is Dt. 25::4's prohibition not to muzzle the ox. That law is applied at least three times in the NT, and two of them explicitly state it is an application of OT law (1 Cor. 9:9-10, 1 Tim. 5:18).



So the better way is not Dispensationalism, which claims there are two entirely different covenants. The matter is reconciled by understanding the law is annulled as a means of attaining righteousness and justification and other wise remains in place except where fulfilled in Christ or otherwise negated in the NT. More importantly the law is applied in principle, not letter. This is where the Jews went wrong with the law. Nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the OT. He wasn't so mauch teaching a new meaning of the law or a new law, as he was teaching restored meaning. You have heard it said,......, but I say......"
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
God bless you too Michael. As I may have stated before, the death burial and resurrection was indeed preached by both the 12 in early Acts, as well as Paul.

Thanks for the reply, Guojing. I don't remember you saying that, but I am glad you recognize that the gospel was preached by all the Apostles.

The fundamental difference was that in Peter's account in Acts 2 and 3, it was preached as a murder indictment. Remembering the promise of what the Gospel of Kingdom means to them, Peter and the other disciples continue to preach to Jews only, and offer them the same gospel of the Kingdom.

Jesus’s death and resurrection were used by Peter, not to illustrate the divine exchange as Paul did, but as the final proof that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, the promised Messiah.

In fact, not only did Peter not preach the divine exchange aspect of Jesus’s cruxifiction on the cross, I notice one constant theme he hammered to his Jewish listeners was that they were responsible for crucifying Jesus.

Examples were:
  1. Acts 2:36, where Peter says, "... Jesus, whom ye crucified ...."
  2. Peter also says in Acts 3:14-15, "But ye denied the Holy One ... and killed the Prince of life ...."
  3. Then in Acts 5:30 he says, "... Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."
  4. Finally Stephen, who also preached Peter's gospel, told the Jews in Acts 7:52, "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers ...."
I look forward to your analysis of Acts 2-3 and curious to see how you interpret what Peter was preaching.

The way I see it is that Peter tailored his message to the group he was speaking to, much like many modern missionaries contextualize the gospel message in order to reach the people group they are ministering to. In Acts 2 and 3, Peter does indeed preach the gospel as a sort of murder indictment against the Jews for rejecting their Messiah. It reminds me of the time I was approached by a Jew and asked whether I thought the Romans or the Jews were responsible for crucifying Christ. My response was to say: "Neither, really. It was my sins and your sins that placed Jesus on the cross... we all are guilty of the crucifixion of Christ." I doubt that all the people that Peter preached to were among the crowd that cried out for Jesus to be crucified, but in fact it was the leaders of the nation who turned Jesus over to be crucified... but it is true that this was a national sin, and in a spiritual sense all of Israel shared in the guilt... but we also share in the guilt every time we sin. That is how I see it.

I have learned something new recently, that will reconcile the common objection that many have raised to me, that the Matthew 28 told Peter and the others to preach to "all nations", surely that term must include Gentiles.

What I found out was this interesting verse in Acts 2:5

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Mark 13:10 reinforced the above point too

And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

These 2 passages may shed some light in what Jesus meant by "all nations" in what ended up as the most popular version of the GC used by churches, the Matthew version.

What Jesus meant by "all nations" does not mean Jews and Gentiles in all nations, rather its to the unbelieving Jews of "all nations".

Interesting. That could be what Jesus meant, not sure though. More for me to research, sigh... this thread is definitely keeping me in the Word!

God bless you;
Michael
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Guojing
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
The problem is neither claim is true.

The apostles did not say we are not bound by the Mosaic Law and Dispensationalism id not the only theology that reconciles the seeming conflict because there is no conflict.

If the reader of Acts and the epistolary pays attentions to the specifics then s/he will see there are two specified conditions pertaining to the annulment of the law: 1) the law is annulled only for the purposes of a) righteousness and b) justification and 2) the NT writers constantly appeal to the OT laws as standards for the NT-era ekklesia. Regarding the first, the abrogation of the law for righteousnes sor justification we read,

Romans 3:20 KJV
"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

Galatians 2:15-16
"We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;, nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."

Galatians 3:10-11
"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.' Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith."

Not sure where you get the idea Acts 15 annuls the law because the only mention of the law in that chapter has to do with circumcision.

If a study is done on the treatment of the law in the NT epistolary it will be discovered the law is holy, righteous, good, and spiritual. The law makes us aware of sin. Paul told Timothy, "we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully."

However, the law is not by faith.

And therein lies the problem and the reason it does not and cannot bring justification or righteousness.

In Romans 3:21-22, it says that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ, so this has always been the one and only way to attain righteousness, and God's law can't be annulled for a goal that it never had. In Genesis 6:8-9, it says that Noah found grace in the eyes of God and that he was a righteous man, so he attained righteousness by grace through faith in the same way as everyone else. God had no need to provide and alternative and unattainable means of becoming righteous by obeying His law when a perfectly good means was already in place, so it was never given for that goal. Trying to attain righteousness by the law has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of its goal, and it is precisely that misunderstanding that caused the Israelites to fail to attain righteousness in Romans 9:30-10:4, where they pursued the law as though righteousness by works in an effort to attain their own instead of by pursuing the law as though righteousness were by faith in Christ, for Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith.

However, you are incorrectly conflating God's law with works of the law. 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 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith. Likewise, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so again God's law is of faith. In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law, while no one is justified before God by works of the law because they are not of faith in God.

So the better way is not Dispensationalism, which claims there are two entirely different covenants. The matter is reconciled by understanding the law is annulled as a means of attaining righteousness and justification and other wise remains in place except where fulfilled in Christ or otherwise negated in the NT. More importantly the law is applied in principle, not letter. This is where the Jews went wrong with the law. Nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the OT. He wasn't so mauch teaching a new meaning of the law or a new law, as he was teaching restored meaning. You have heard it said,......, but I say......"

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he proceed to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it or by completing our understanding of it. In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something unique that only Jesus did. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the law of Christ, so you should interpret that in the same way as you interpret fulfilling the Law of Moses.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so the NT does not do this. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for him was if they taught against obeying His law, so God did not leave us any room to follow someone who claims that any of His laws have been negated, especially when they are all eternal (Psalms 119:160). I would agree that Jesus was not teaching anything brand new in Matthew 5 in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hello, no problem.

Blessings to you, Soyeong. Glad to hear that the copy and paste didn't cause formatting problems... I'll keep that in mind.

The Israelites needed to be taught about who God is, how to walk in His ways, and how to grow in a relationship with Him, so the Mosaic Law was given for that purpose (Deuteronomy 10:12-22).

Paul says that the purpose of the Law was to be a tutor to bring us to Jesus. "Romans 10:4 NKJV For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.".


God's ways are His character traits, and there are many others verses that also describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so the reason that God gave the law was not in order to teach the nations about who Israel is, but rather it was given to Israel in order to equip them to teach the nations about who God is. So none of God's laws were arbitrarily given, but rather they all had an intention about them to teach us about who God is and how to be a light and a blessing to the nations through testifying to them about who God is. In Deuteronomy 4:5-8, the intended reaction of the nations seeing Israel's obedience to the Mosaic Law was to marvel at how great and wise He is, so it was intended that the nations would see what God was doing through Israel and want to become part of that, which means that the law was intended to be used as a tool to evangelize the nations.

And how did that work for them? The fault is not in the Law, but in man's ability to keep it. My righteousness is found not in my obedience to the Law, but in faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Paul says this about those who would seek to keep the Law under the New Covenant:

Galatians 3:1-3 NASB You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? (2) This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (3) Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?​



There would be no point in Israel being a light to the nations if there is no more substance to it than just showing the nations how different they are, so while holiness is being set apart, it is not about being different just for the sake of being different. All of those instructions for how to have a holy conduct teach us important things about His holiness and by following those instructions we are testifying about who God is.

Ok, we need to take this idea to the Law. How does this commandments tell us anything about God?

Deuteronomy 22:11 NASB "You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.


Morality is in regard to what we ought to do, so if we ought to have a holy conduct (1 Peter 1:16), then that is a moral issue. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's eternal holiness can't become obsolete unless God's eternal holiness first becomes obsolete. If the way to act in accordance with God's holiness or other character traits were to change when the New Covenant was made, then God's character traits would not be eternal, but rather according to Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following God's law.

The Law of Moses was, in many cases, not about morality, but about being separate from the practices of the pagan nations of the day.

If Adam and Eve were permitted to kill animals for clothing after the Fall, then I don't see a good reason to think that they weren't also permitted to kill animals for food. Unclean animals tend to be predators and scavengers, which did not exist during the Fall, and Isaiah 11:8 predicts a time when an infant with play by the cobra's den, so there will be a time when conditions are returned to how they were in the Garden before the Fall when there were no predators. So there was something that changed in the nature of animals with the Fall that caused them to become unfit for eating and making offerings, which means that the division between clean and unclean animals goes back to the Fall and Genesis 9 was not the first time they were permitted to eat clean animals. I recognize that I am making some inferences that are not directly stated, but I think interpreting God as always being against eating unclean animals fits better with His eternal nature and makes much more sense than interpreting Him as flip flopping back and forth about whether it an abomination to do that.

Genesis 3:21 NASB The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.​

God provided the animal skins, Adam and Eve did not kill the animal, apparently God did.

If the way to act in accordance with God's holiness is straightforwardly based on God's holiness, not on any particular covenant, and the same goes for God's other character traits. God's holiness being eternal means that any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His holiness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under. Please explain how God's holiness can be considered to be eternal and unchanging if the way to act in accordance with His holiness can change from covenant to covenant.

I already did. The moral aspects of the Law, those retained in the NC, reflect God's morality, while many of the laws were simply to set Israel apart from the pagan civil/religious practices of the ancient near east, and were only wrong because they were associated with those practices, not because wearing garments woven of more than one fabric is inherently evil.



The law brings us to Christ because everything in it teaches us about who he is, how to walk as he walked, and how to grow in a relationship with him. Someone who disregarded everything their tutor taught them after they left would be missing the whole point of a tutor. Now that Christ has come we have a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His law in accordance with what he taught by word and by example. If you agree that NT Scriptures endorse the Mosaic Law in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then you should consider it to be part of the New Covenant and on which our relation to God is based.

In the context of the entire NT, the Law brings death, not life. The Spirit brings life. What we can learn from the Law of Moses is to be set apart from the world, being dedicated to the Lord's use. Much of the Law of Moses is stories that have very pointed life lessons about obedience to the revealed will of God. The kind of food we eat has nothing to do with morality today.

Either there are correct and incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised and Paul was only speaking against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2-3, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised (Acts 16:3) and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. However, I've made the point that the problem in Acts 15:1 was not with God's command, but with it being used for a purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it, so he was only speaking against becoming circumcised for incorrect reasons.

Fair enough. But what Paul was saying was that an adult gentile, if circumcised, would be signaling that he was accepting the terms of the OC, and would therefore be required to keep the whole Law of Moses... you cannot avoid that point. This was not God's intention for the gentiles, the Law of Moses is not part of the NC, otherwise what would be the problem with being circumcised according to the commandment of the Law?

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so God's law is of faith.

Outward obedience without faith would never save. It has always been about faith. What Jesus is saying here is that faith in God is more important than tithing exactly 10% of your garden herbs. The Law is not about faith, though, it is about obedience to the revealed will of God by faith.

In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law that was of works with a law that was of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so again God's law is of faith and Paul contrasted God's law with works of the law.

Romans 3:27 says that there is a different law of faith from the Law of works. He explained faith upholds the Law by being of the kind of faith that saves apart from the Law of Moses... the faith of Abraham.

In Galatians 3:10-14, Paul spoke about works of the law, which were not of faith and contrasted them with the Book of the Law, which is of faith. He associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law, while no one is justified before God by works of the law because they are not of faith in God.

Facepalm. How can you read that passage and come up with the exact opposite conclusion from what Paul is saying? The Law of Moses is works oriented. Salvation was, is, and always shall be by grace through faith based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. He saved us from the curse of the Law, and delivered us into a relationship with the Father based entirely upon Christ's finished work on the cross. If we could be righteous simply by obeying the Law, Christ died for nothing (Galatians 2:21).

I'll leave you with this passage to ponder:

Galatians 4:21-31 NASB Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? (22) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. (23) But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. (24) This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. (25) Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. (26) But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. (27) For it is written, "REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND." (28) And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. (29) But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. (30) But what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN." (31) So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.​

I am not sure how Paul could have been more clear than he was in the book of Galatians...

God bless, you;
Michael
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Romans 3:21-22, it says that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ, so this has always been the one and only way to attain righteousness, and God's law can't be annulled for a goal that it never had.
Which is exactly what I said in my op-reply in different words. If I did not adequately communicate that then I beg your patience. Otherwise, go back and re-read my op-reply because nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the OT. Though I made that pretty clear.
However, you are incorrectly conflating God's law with works of the law.
Never said any such thing.

So now you get put on the spot: quote me conflating the two.

Or apologize.

I was very specific about the correct arena of the law and where it is incorrectly used and I backed everything I posted up with scripture. If you read a conflation that's on you; a product of your reading, not my posting.
In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law, while no one is justified before God by works of the law because they are not of faith in God.
Yep. Exactly what I said.


Please don't waste any more of my time arguing a straw man blamed on me when what you are arguing against has nothing to do with what I actually posted.

Neither does it have anything to do with the fact Dispensationalism has conflicts with what you've posted and your efforts are best directed toward that reality. Dispensationalism argued a different soteriology than salvation by grace through faith for works (Eph. 2:8-10). It claims to argue Ephesians 2 and it claims in the end the Jews will come to faith in Christ and be saved by that faith but......... 1) you have to be a Jew, 2) you have to suffer the trib, 3) you gotta re-institute the law and its sacrifices, 4) you're gonna have to go through an earthly millennium, and 5) it is gonna cost them.

Those are all works!

Those are all works that precede the eventual faith!

That theology unwittingly asserts a salvation by works to faith soteriology. One means of salvation for the Jew and another for the Gentile.

Dispensationalism is not the only or best theology to understand the seemingly disparate position of those two teachings. The Church managed to understand the two homogeneously for 1800 years before Dispensationalism arose.


So again I exhort you not to waste my time arguing over something I did not post and - given some of the very excellent things you posted - you turn that content on the op's claim only Dispensationalism has a reconciliation of Jesus teaching obedience to the law with the apostles' teaching the law's abrogation.

That claim is a falsehood.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The problem is neither claim is true.

The apostles did not say we are not bound by the Mosaic Law and Dispensationalism is not the only theology that reconciles the seeming conflict because there is no conflict.

I disagree, but am open to being shown that what you claim is true.

If the reader of Acts and the epistolary pays attentions to the specifics then s/he will see there are two specified conditions pertaining to the annulment of the law: 1) the law is annulled only for the purposes of a) righteousness and b) justification and 2) the NT writers constantly appeal to the OT laws as standards for the NT-era ekklesia.

Regarding the first, the abrogation of the law for righteousness or justification we read,

Romans 3:20 KJV
"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

Galatians 2:15-16
"We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;, nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified."

Galatians 3:10-11
"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.' Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith."

I agree with these verses. Are you making a distinction between righteousness and sanctification?

Not sure where you get the idea Acts 15 annuls the law because the only mention of the law in that chapter has to do with circumcision.

Acts 15:5-6 NASB But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." (6) The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.​

The believing Pharisees clearly say "observe" (IOW's, obey) the Law of Moses. The outcome of this council was that Gentiles were not obligated to keep the Law of Moses. It is only those laws which are reiterated in the NC that are binding on Christians.

If a study is done on the treatment of the law in the NT epistolary it will be discovered the law is holy, righteous, good, and spiritual. The law makes us aware of sin. Paul told Timothy, "we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully."

Yes, as a means of revealing to us our inability to obey the Law and thus bringing us to Christ.

However, the law is not by faith.

And therein lies the problem and the reason it does not and cannot bring justification or righteousness.

Exactly. Our righteousness is from Christ. We strive to grow practically into what we have been given positionally by being led by the Holy Spirit to obey the commands of the New Covenant (NC), not the Law of Moses.

Here's one of the rubs with the Dispensationalist way: the law itself states the law is applicable to all, both the Jew and the alien to Judaism.

Exodus 12:49 KJV
"One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you."

Leviticus 24:22
"There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God."

Numbers 9:14
"If a foreigner dwelling among you wants to observe the Passover to the LORD, he is to do so according to the Passover statute and its ordinances. You are to apply the same statute to both the foreigner and the native of the land."

Numbers 15:15
"As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the LORD."

So the law they say applies only to the Jew states quite plainly it applies to all.

All who would seek to approach God under the Old Covenant (OC) would be required to keep the Law, which includes circumcision. In other words, those who wished to be right with God under the OC must begin the process of becoming an Israelite. The idea is that the gentiles living in the land would become part of Israel. That is how I understand it.

Conundrum.

Not really.

When the Jews translated the Tanakh into Greek they translated "qahal" into "ekklesia;" that is "assembly" into church." Apart from the command sin is not taken into account (Rom. 5:13) if the law is done away with in its entirety then there is no sin for which we must account and therefore there is no need for Christ. this is the logical end of Dispensationalism when all the NT says about the law is considered.

Wow. You misunderstand the dispensationalist position, and the Scriptures. Christ brought an end to the OC by enacting a NC. The NC goes to great lengths to show that obedience to the NC commands is essential (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:18-21; etc.). To say that classical dispensationalism (commonly called Acts 2 dispensationalism) teaches antinomianism is false... although there are some "grace teachers" who are ultra-dispensational who could be accused of teaching that (although I am sure they would not take kindly to that).

An example of the OT laws being applied in the NT ekklesia is Dt. 25::4's prohibition not to muzzle the ox. That law is applied at least three times in the NT, and two of them explicitly state it is an application of OT law (1 Cor. 9:9-10, 1 Tim. 5:18).

I obviously recognize that some OT laws are reiterated in the NC (again, see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), but the Law of Moses as a whole is not binding on the NT church. I see other views as trying to divide the Law of Moses into applicable and non-applicable, but James says the Law is a unit that cannot be parceled out (James 2:10). Scripturally, either you keep the entire Law of Moses (and therefore place yourself under the OC), or you obey the commands of the NC (and place yourself in Christ) (Galatians 5:2-3).

So the better way is not Dispensationalism, which claims there are two entirely different covenants. The matter is reconciled by understanding the law is annulled as a means of attaining righteousness and justification and other wise remains in place except where fulfilled in Christ or otherwise negated in the NT. More importantly the law is applied in principle, not letter. This is where the Jews went wrong with the law. Nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the OT. He wasn't so much teaching a new meaning of the law or a new law, as he was teaching restored meaning. You have heard it said,......, but I say......"

On the contrary, they are two distinct covenants (as I have just shown). Nothing I am aware of in the OT Law is applicable to the church unless it is reiterated after the NC was inaugurated. I agree with your last point, Jesus taught the Law of Moses as it should be understood.

God bless you;
Michael
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All who would seek to approach God under the Old Covenant (OC) would be required to keep the Law, which includes circumcision.
Nope. Right there is where your thinking, doctrine, and practice goes wrong. It goes wrong because it's what's not being said that is critical. All those who...… seek to be saved by the law must obey it all. Those already saved don't need the law for salvation, justification, nor righteousness. Those things are all commuted to us by grace through faith in Christ.

Because the "saved" part is left out, or ignored or neglected, DPism gets away with an overgeneralization not evidenced in God's word. And undiscerning Christians buy into it. As a result we have this other mistake:
On the contrary, they are two distinct covenants (as I have just shown).
Except your "showing" is incorrect. Had you gone back and checked the law and the prophets, you'd see the apostles' teaching about the new covenant was an application of the OT commands!

God divorced the covenant-breakers and made a new covenant with a people who were not then His own and He kept a remnant for Himself from among the covenant-breaking Jews. The Gentile convert to Christ lives by the same standards as has always existed: the righteous will live by faith, and they were grafted into an already-existing tree while all along God's remnant remained. Every word of that New Testament content comes straight out of the Old Testament Law, prophets, and psalms. Those are the witnesses.....

...to Christ.

In other words, in an effort to prove my post incorrect you proved my post!

Because nearly everything you'll quote from the NT can be found in the OT you will not be able to escape the fact the OT laws (Law, commands, precepts, etc.) are in fact applied to the ekklesia. But they are not applied as a means of salvation, righteousness, or justification. Dispensationalism has it wrong.
Wow. You misunderstand the dispensationalist position, and the Scriptures.
No, I do not. You might, but I do not. I can quote leading Dispensationalist after Dispensationalist stating what I have posted. You'll learn you may not actually be a DPer.
I obviously recognize that some OT laws are reiterated in the NC (again, see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), but the Law of Moses as a whole....
Cut the cr@p. You don't get any get out of jail card because you use the qualifier "as a whole." The blunt undeniable irrefutable FACT of what you yourself just cited is the fact the apostles applied the OT law to those in the church.

Deal with that fact.

The epistle writers held out the OT commands as the standard for the ekklesia. They did it repetitively. They did it diversely. They did it chronically. They did it.

They

did

it.


Now, how and why they did it worth discussing. The fact they did it is not up for dispute. And if you do actually agree with what I posted about the law no longer being valid as a means of salvation, righteousness, or justification then you will face the fact the law was applied in other ways to the Christian, not the Jew, by the apostles AND you will deal with the stated specifics of its abrogation AND you will deal with the fact DPism teaches it incorrectly and is not the only theology that reconciles the seeming disparity.

There is a more viable alternative.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Good morning, Josheb! Hope you are blessed today.

Nope. Right there is where your thinking, doctrine, and practice goes wrong. It goes wrong because it's what's not being said that is critical. All those who...… seek to be saved by the law must obey it all. Those already saved don't need the law for salvation, justification, nor righteousness. Those things are all commuted to us by grace through faith in Christ.

No one will be saved by the Law, which is obviously stated in the NT... I'm listening.

Because the "saved" part is left out, or ignored or neglected, DPism gets away with an overgeneralization not evidenced in God's word. And undiscerning Christians buy into it. As a result we have this other mistake:

Except your "showing" is incorrect. Had you gone back and checked the law and the prophets, you'd see the apostles' teaching about the new covenant was an application of the OT commands!

Obviously there are aspects of the OC that are reiterated in the NC, and I have not said otherwise.

God divorced the covenant-breakers and made a new covenant with a people who were not then His own and He kept a remnant for Himself from among the covenant-breaking Jews. The Gentile convert to Christ lives by the same standards as has always existed: the righteous will live by faith, and they were grafted into an already-existing tree while all along God's remnant remained.

With you so far, but I think we may disagree on the identity of the olive tree.

Every word of that New Testament content comes straight out of the Old Testament Law, prophets, and psalms.

ok

Those are the witnesses.....

...to Christ.

No doubt the OT speaks of the coming Messiah.

In other words, in an effort to prove my post incorrect you proved my post!

That's certainly a leap of logic I am not following...

Because nearly everything you'll quote from the NT can be found in the OT

That's an overstatement... but not one worth quibbling over.

you will not be able to escape the fact the OT laws (Law, commands, precepts, etc.) are in fact applied to the ekklesia. But they are not applied as a means of salvation, righteousness, or justification.

Ok, no argument on this point. How do you see them as being applied?

Dispensationalism has it wrong.

Not sure how you reached this conclusion from what you've posted so far.

No, I do not. You might, but I do not. I can quote leading Dispensationalist after Dispensationalist stating what I have posted. You'll learn you may not actually be a DPer.

I am still in the process of learning all that Dispensationalism teaches, but I doubt you will find an Acts 2 Dispensationalist that teaches what you say. You are aware that there are HUGE differences amongst those who call themselves dispensational, right?

It is patently obvious that there are commands given in the NC that prohibit sin. The fact that the vast majority of these commands come from the OC does not change the fact that the Law of Moses as a whole is no longer binding on the Christian.

Cut the cr@p.

Tone down the rhetoric a notch or two, brother.

You don't get any get out of jail card because you use the qualifier "as a whole." The blunt undeniable irrefutable FACT of what you yourself just cited is the fact the apostles applied the OT law to those in the church.

Deal with that fact.

I have no problem with the "undeniable irrefutable fact" that aspects of the OC are reiterated in the NC... not sure why you think I would have a problem with that. That said, you have to deal with the undeniable irrefutable fact of what James says:

James 2:8-11 NASB If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. (9) But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (10) For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. (11) For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
The Law is a unit, and if you fail to keep it all, you have become "guilty of all". This is Scripture, not "cr@p", as you put it. Jesus said we have to keep, and teach others to keep, even "the least of these commandments". Remember that, the whole reason for this thread? Yet we are not told by the Apostles to keep the Sabbaths, the dietary laws, etc. How do you account for that?

The epistle writers held out the OT commands as the standard for the ekklesia. They did it repetitively. They did it diversely. They did it chronically. They did it.

They

did

it.

No doubt. I am wondering how you come to the conclusion that this is some kind of earth shattering revelation to me...

Now, how and why they did it worth discussing.

Certainly.

The fact they did it is not up for dispute. And if you do actually agree with what I posted about the law no longer being valid as a means of salvation, righteousness, or justification then you will face the fact the law was applied in other ways to the Christian, not the Jew, by the apostles

They were applied as NC commands.

AND you will deal with the stated specifics of its abrogation

Not sure about the word "abrogation"... I don't think the Law of Moses has been "abrogated", it has been fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18). The Law still stands as a means of convicting the unrighteous and bringing them to see their need for Christ (Galatians 3:24). However, it is not binding upon the NC believer (Acts 15).

AND you will deal with the fact DPism teaches it incorrectly and is not the only theology that reconciles the seeming disparity.

Ok, I am willing to hear you out on this matter.

There is a more viable alternative.

Waiting to hear it.

God bless you;
Michael
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Obviously there are aspects of the OC that are reiterated in the NC, and I have not said otherwise.
That is not enough.

The law NEVER saved. Ever. The only way to God salvifically is through Christ. That is not new. It goes all the way back to Eden and the Tree of Life. The Mosaic Code is irrelevant because it cannot save, and never could. That is not what's "new" about the "new covenant." The new aspect to the new covenant is that it is offered to Gentile believers, not just Jews.

Look it up.

Go back to the first mentions of the new covenant in the OT and verify what I just posted.

Dispensationalism has it wrong.

Dispensationalism teaches a bad soteriology. It also teaches a bad Christology, a bad ecclesiology, and has some fundamental errors in its formal Theology. And it preaches one thing but teaches another. It preaches slvation through Christ alone but as I have already shown it actually teaches a salvation by works through faith for the Jew.
With you so far, but I think we may disagree on the identity of the olive tree.
Another Dispensational red herring. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, being created in Christ for good works God already has planned for us to perform. By grace through faith for works. The Dispensational salvation for the Jew is by works through faith. It's a bad soteriology.

Olive tree or no olive tree.
That's certainly a leap of logic I am not following...
No, it is not a leap in logic. It is a statement of plain observable fact. Every single NT passage you quoted referenced the OT. This conversation is about the law and this op's claim only Dispensationalism reconciles the seeming disparity between obeying the law and the law's abrogation. Which is it? Are we to obey it or is it done away with? The op says, "That's easy, we simply see there's one path of the Jew and another for the Christian! Problem solved! Only Dispensationalism reconciles the seeming contradiction!" It's a pile dross that has no integrity with scripture correctly read.

The fact is the apostles constantly applied the law and the prophets to the new covenant ekklesia. I'm going to repeat that so it sinks in.

The New Testament apostles constantly applied the Old Testament laws and prophets to the new covenant ekklesia.

The New Testament apostles constantly applied the Old Testament laws and prophets to the new covenant ekklesia.

The New Testament apostles constantly applied the Old Testament laws and prophets to the new covenant ekklesia.


They did so in areas other than salvation and as a means of justification and righteousness. The solution to the seeming dilemma, "Is the law annulled or is it to be obeyed?" is resolved by realizing the law has differing domains to which it is no longer (or never was) applicable and domains where it remains salient, at least in principle (and I cited the muzzled ox as an example).

I was presented an argument of dissent that actually did what I posted: it referenced the NT apostles applying OT law and prophets to new covenant Christians. They were applying the supposedly abrogated law expecting obedience. They were applying fulfilled prophesy expecting change.

No leap in logic required.

Radical discarding of Dispensationalism required. Dispensationalism has it wrong.
I am still in the process of learning all that Dispensationalism teaches...
??????

Then what business have you claiming only Dispensationalism reconciles the matter of obedience to an annulled law? How can you presume to tell a cyberspace full of Christians such a thing? How can you presume to promote a theology you are still in the process of learning?

You want me to tone down the rhetoric? It wasn't rhetoric. What has been posted is dross. You need to open your eyes and look at it. You need to look at Dispensationalism and stop promoting an awful theology that has divided the church in ways never realized by the Great Schism or the Reformation. It's a bad theology.
...but I doubt you will find an Acts 2 Dispensationalist that teaches what you say. You are aware that there are HUGE differences amongst those who call themselves dispensational, right?
So now we're moving the goal posts, are we? This op doesn't mention "Acts 2 Dispensationalists." It mentions "Dispensationalism." Period. I read,

"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....."

That statement is wrong. So is Acts 2 Dispensationalism, but I'll attend to that later. 73 posts into this discussion and now clarifying your position to be exclusive to "Acts 2 Dispensationalism," and not Dispensationalsim as a whole because making such a change is imagined will purchase some wiggle room is misguided. It will not. The entire Dispensational paradigm is corrupt. Has been since its inception.
It is patently obvious that there are commands given in the NC that prohibit sin.
Sin is lawlessness. There is no accounting for sin apart from the law. The law makes you and I aware of sin. The law is good when used lawfully. I believe I've already covered this terrain.
The fact that the vast majority of these commands come from the OC does not change the fact that the Law of Moses as a whole is no longer binding on the Christian.
And yet the NT apostles constantly applied it to the new covenant Christian in a binding manner, and you are on record demonstrating that fact by quoting the apostle applying the supposedly annulled law to the new covenant Christians. It can't be had both ways, food4thought. That's not reconciling anything; it's self-contradictory.

If the law was truly annulled in all domains of life then there would be no applying it to the Christian at all anywhere at any time for anything.

But that's not what we see in the epistolary.

So both this op and the theology its based upon need to be rethought, because both are seriously flawed when rendered by whole scripture and reason. It is illogical to claim something is annulled and then apply that which has been annulled.

So you have not understood the "dilemma" between the law's annulment and the requirement to obey it and Dispensationalism is not the only theology that resolves the dilemma.
I have no problem with the "undeniable irrefutable fact" that aspects of the OC are reiterated in the NC... not sure why you think I would have a problem with that.
Because this op states the solution to the seeming dilemma of obedience versus abrogation lies in the Dispensational theology of two-covenant salvation but that is not a solution to the problem.

It is not simply that the OC is reiterated in the NC. That's a red herring. What we are discussing is the "dilemma" between the commands (plural) to obey the law and the teaching the law has been annulled. What we are discussing is the claim Dispensationalism alone solves the seeming dilemma.

I have have resolved the dilemma and done so without appealing to Dsipensationalism and I have shown how Dispensationalism does not actually resolve the dilemma.

That is why I think there are problems (plural) in what I'm reading.
No doubt. I am wondering how you come to the conclusion that this is some kind of earth shattering revelation to me...
Cut the cr@p. At no time did I say anything was an "earth shattering revelation" to anyone. I don't appreciate having words put into my posts I didn't write.

I come to that conclusion because of the scripture-contradicting, the self-contradictory content of the posts, and the factual errors posted. This op asserts the solution to the dilemma is to realize, as Dispensationalism teaches, the law is still binding for the Jew but annulled for the Christian. This op states,

"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."


That is not the solution to the dilemma of obedience versus annulment because we see obedience to the law taught to the new covenant Christian, not the old covenant Jew, throughout the epistolary. This teaching "we're to obey the entirety of the Law and prophets, and teach others to do so," is not "directed only to ethnic Israel." The op is incorrect. Dispensationalism does not solve the dilemma. Acts 2 Dispensationalism does not solve the dilemma. Dispensationalism is not the only theology that does resolve the seeming dilemma.

This op is wrong.




And before you post dross like this again you should become more learned about Dispensationalism and its older more established, more orthodox, more mainstream competitors.



I suggest starting with the Counterpoint Series book. "Five Views on Law and Gospel," edited by Stanley Gundry. I then recommend reading Lewis Sperry Chafer's book titled, "Dispensationalism," followed by Kim Riddlebarger's "A Case for Amillennialism." I am loath to have you read anything about Dispensationalism but if you're going to explore it then at least read one of the best sources. Chafer's book is among the best, if not the best. I do not recommend the Riddlebarger book because I think you should become an amillennialist. I recommend his book because his critique of Dispensationalism is well-mannered and not mean-spirited. It's also fatal to Dispensationalism.

Whatever you do, you should not presume to tell other Christians only one theology solves a problem when you yourself are still learning about that theology and don't know much about its competitors. That's just bad form.
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good morning, Josheb!
Good morning Michael, Blessings upon you.
Waiting to hear it.
Now this is frustrating. I have already provided a resolution to the seeming dilemma between the command to obey and the teaching of annulment and now I'm reading, "Waiting to hear it."


Go back and re-read my op reply. Asking me to repost already-posted content as if it wasn't already posted is rude and disrespectful. It indicates what was previously posted wasn't actually read, wasn't considered with any degree of serious consideration and wasn't treated with the authenticity implied by Christian discourse. If you're not reading the posts, the whole post, and the whole post contemplatively then you're wasting both our time.

Go back and re-read my op-reply. If the resolution is not clear to you after having read and considered the post then ask me something post-related and I'll gladly clarify it. But don't pretend you're waiting for something that has already been posted.

You should take this seriously because this op makes false claims. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and trust that happened unawares. I'll come along side of you as a brother in the faith and endeavor to show you a more scriptural, factual, and rational view but comments like "Waiting to hear it," if you already know the answer has already been provided makes you a troll, Michael.

Don't be that guy.

Go back and re-read my op-reply
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That is not enough.

The law NEVER saved.

Did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth.

Ever. The only way to God salvifically is through Christ. That is not new. It goes all the way back to Eden and the Tree of Life. The Mosaic Code is irrelevant because it cannot save, and never could. That is not what's "new" about the "new covenant." The new aspect to the new covenant is that it is offered to Gentile believers, not just Jews.

Are you saying that the OT saints were saved by looking forward in faith to Christ's sacrifice?

Look it up.

Go back to the first mentions of the new covenant in the OT and verify what I just posted.

I did. It makes no mention of the gentiles being included in the NC. I never said it did.

Dispensationalism has it wrong.

Dispensationalism teaches a bad soteriology. It also teaches a bad Christology, a bad ecclesiology, and has some fundamental errors in its formal Theology.

I would ask for some evidence of those charges, but I want to keep this thread focused on what Dispensationalism says about Matthew 5:17-20, and how it relates to the rest of the NT.

And it preaches one thing but teaches another. It preaches salvation through Christ alone but as I have already shown it actually teaches a salvation by works through faith for the Jew.

Another Dispensational red herring. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, being created in Christ for good works God already has planned for us to perform. By grace through faith for works. The Dispensational salvation for the Jew is by works through faith. It's a bad soteriology.

At the risk of being berated, again, could you copy and paste where you have already shown this?


No, it is not a leap in logic. It is a statement of plain observable fact. Every single NT passage you quoted referenced the OT. This conversation is about the law and this op's claim only Dispensationalism reconciles the seeming disparity between obeying the law and the law's abrogation. Which is it? Are we to obey it or is it done away with? The op says, "That's easy, we simply see there's one path of the Jew and another for the Christian! Problem solved! Only Dispensationalism reconciles the seeming contradiction!" It's a pile dross that has no integrity with scripture correctly read.

I never said this "pile of dross", as you put it. I did say only Dispensationalism reconciles the disparity between Matthew 5:17-20 and the many statements in the NT that say the Christian is not under the entire Law of Moses. I quoted portions of Acts 15 and Galatians to support this, and I quoted James 2:10 to show that the Law of Moses cannot be divided as it sounds like you believe it is. I am still waiting for you to address those Scriptures in any meaningful way.

I did not say the Law has been abrogated, but fulfilled. I did not mean to say there is one path of the Jew and another for the Christian. It is clear both Jew and Gentile are saved the same under the NC. HOWEVER, I will say that although the basis of salvation is the same under both covenants (by grace through faith, on the basis of Christ's substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection), the content of faith has changed as God's revelation has increased. OT Israel was given the OT sacrificial system as a means of atonement, which we now know is a type of Christ's atonement, but nowhere in the Law is it stated that one day Messiah will fulfill that sacrificial system by offering Himself... that is not clearly stated until centuries later in Isaiah 53. Israel was saved by believing what God revealed to them, on the basis of Christ's future substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection. I do not believe they were saved by the Law, I believe they were saved by grace through faith in God's revealed will, on the basis of Christ's substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection. Their obedience to the Law was only a result of their faith, just as our obedience to the NC commands are a result of our faith. Hope that clears things up a little.

That said, it is possible that Chafer believed what you say, but that was over 70 years ago, and although Chafer is a pillar of early Dispensational teaching, not all Dispensationalists, probably not even most from what I have learned and seen on this forum, believe everything he wrote. It is true that I see myself as an Acts 2 (or classical) Dispensationalist, and that is what Chafer was, but that does not mean that I have to agree with everything he wrote to be considered an Acts 2 Dispensationalist. I have Chafer's Systematic Theology, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I will put that at the top of my reading priority list, but given what you have said about what he believed, I will likely find myself disagreeing with him on a number of issues. Dispensationalism as a system is relatively new. As a result, it is in flux as it's adherents respond to the criticism of others, and apparently the teachers I have sat under do not teach everything it seems Chafer and, perhaps, other early Dispensational teachers did. I apologize for not being more aware of this, and the confusion that has caused.

The fact is the apostles constantly applied the law and the prophets to the new covenant ekklesia. I'm going to repeat that so it sinks in.

The New Testament apostles constantly applied the Old Testament laws and prophets to the new covenant ekklesia.

The New Testament apostles constantly applied the Old Testament laws and prophets to the new covenant ekklesia.

The New Testament apostles constantly applied the Old Testament laws and prophets to the new covenant ekklesia.

I never said they didn't. I simply stated that those areas of the Law not specifically reiterated in the NC are not binding on Christians, not because the Law has been abrogated, but because it has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The Law still stands as our tutor to reveal our sinfulness and bring us to Christ. That is how one uses the Law "lawfully".

They did so in areas other than salvation and as a means of justification and righteousness. The solution to the seeming dilemma, "Is the law annulled or is it to be obeyed?" is resolved by realizing the law has differing domains to which it is no longer (or never was) applicable and domains where it remains salient, at least in principle (and I cited the muzzled ox as an example).

I was presented an argument of dissent that actually did what I posted: it referenced the NT apostles applying OT law and prophets to new covenant Christians. They were applying the supposedly abrogated law expecting obedience. They were applying fulfilled prophesy expecting change.

I never said they didn't. The Law has not been abrogated, it has been fulfilled in Christ. The Law as a whole still stands as our tutor to bring us to Christ. This is how the Law is used lawfully.

No leap in logic required.

I think I follow your logic better now, but you still have not engaged in any meaningful way with Acts 15:5 and James 2:10 as they relate to your position. Thus, I am "still waiting".

Radical discarding of Dispensationalism required. Dispensationalism has it wrong.

Perhaps, but what I have been taught seems to be at odds with at least some things you think Dispensationalism universally teaches.

??????

Then what business have you claiming only Dispensationalism reconciles the matter of obedience to an annulled law? How can you presume to tell a cyberspace full of Christians such a thing? How can you presume to promote a theology you are still in the process of learning?

I do not need to know everything about the system to know what it teaches about a Christian's relationship to the Law.


So now we're moving the goal posts, are we? This op doesn't mention "Acts 2 Dispensationalists." It mentions "Dispensationalism." Period. I read,

"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....."

That statement is wrong. So is Acts 2 Dispensationalism, but I'll attend to that later. 73 posts into this discussion and now clarifying your position to be exclusive to "Acts 2 Dispensationalism," and not Dispensationalsim as a whole because making such a change is imagined will purchase some wiggle room is misguided.

I was not trying to find some "wiggle room". I was trying to clarify my position. I apologize for not making that clear earlier. My mistake. I hope the section above helps move this conversation forward.

Sin is lawlessness. There is no accounting for sin apart from the law. The law makes you and I aware of sin. The law is good when used lawfully. I believe I've already covered this terrain.

Yes, we've both covered this terrain.

And yet the NT apostles constantly applied it to the new covenant Christian in a binding manner, and you are on record demonstrating that fact by quoting the apostle applying the supposedly annulled law to the new covenant Christians. It can't be had both ways, food4thought. That's not reconciling anything; it's self-contradictory.

I never said differently. The Law has not been abrogated, it has been fulfilled in Christ. Only what the NC teaches is binding on the Christian. There is no contradiction.

So you have not understood the "dilemma" between the law's annulment and the requirement to obey it and Dispensationalism is not the only theology that resolves the dilemma.

You have not understood my position, which is partially my fault, sorry.


I have have resolved the dilemma and done so without appealing to Dsipensationalism and I have shown how Dispensationalism does not actually resolve the dilemma.

No, you have not. I am still waiting for you to address how Acts 15:5 and James 2:10 do not deny your position.


I come to that conclusion because of the scripture-contradicting, the self-contradictory content of the posts, and the factual errors posted. This op asserts the solution to the dilemma is to realize, as Dispensationalism teaches, the law is still binding for the Jew but annulled for the Christian. This op states,

"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."

Yes, I see how my mistake in the OP. I will correct that error in the future. I was simply acknowledging that some Dispensationalists believe that, and it should not have been included in my OP. My mistake.


I am out of time. Thank you for correcting my mistake. I hope you can see my position better now.

God bless you;
Michael
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am going to step back from this thread until I have a better grasp on what normative Acts 2 Dispensationalism teaches. Still interested in reading how people reconcile Matthew 5:17-20 with Acts 15, Galatians, and James 2:10.

God bless you all;
Michael
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth.
I did not say you did say such a thing. This is now the second time words I didn't write have been insinuated into my posts. This time it happens 1) after having been asked not to do so, 2) in avoidance of the point being made, and 3) as a petty bicker.

Earlier, I was told by another poster, "However, you are incorrectly conflating God's law with works of the law." when the posts show no such conflation. IN other words, I was explicitly blamed for something that never happened.

You were not.

The fact is and has always been - whether you ever said so or not - the law ever saved. In other words, that should be a point of mutual consensus and collaborative agreement, but for some unstated reason the response, "Did I say that?" Please don't put words in my mouth," is imagined a cogent response.

It is not.

So you think about how you'd like this conversation to go because you and I disagree and are going to continue to disagree unless and until what I post is found persuasive. I'll post the evidence. It's not personal. The conversation will go nowhere as long as you can't get past, "Did I say that?"

No one said you did.

So you let me know whether you want to have this conversation or not.
 
Upvote 0