Matthew 5:17-20 and Dispensationalism

[food4thought]

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

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

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

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

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


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

God bless you;
Michael

 

[HTacianas]

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

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

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

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

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


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

God bless you;
Michael

It depends entirely on what you consider the law to be. For instance, there is recorded in the old testament the law given to Moses and also the decisions of the Jewish judges in interpreting those laws. But then again there is a simpler law given to Noah.

Jesus told his apostles that the divorce laws were given by Moses on his own authority, but that "from the beginning" they were not so. That leaves us with the question of what is the law. The law of Noah? The law of Moses? The law of the Jewish judges?

Paul had a vision of Jesus who sent him on his ministry. That vision is recorded in Acts. But Paul said at 1 Corinthians 11:23 that he "received from the Lord" the establishment of the Eucharist but does not say when or how he received it. It begs the question, "what else did Paul receive from the Lord"? Paul also said at Colossians 2:20-23 that at least parts of the law were "the commandments of men", hence said throughout that those "works of the law" do not justify.

Paul also identifies Jesus as "a priest forever on the order of Melchesidic". Melchesidic was a priest of the covenant with Noah.

So. Which law?

 

[food4thought]

Hi, HTacianas! Thanks for the thought provoking reply!

It depends entirely on what you consider the law to be. For instance, there is recorded in the old testament the law given to Moses and also the decisions of the Jewish judges in interpreting those laws. But then again there is a simpler law given to Noah.

What do you think Jesus meant when He said "the Law or the prophets"... it seems to me to be an obvious reference to the Jewish Scriptures in total. Am I wrong?

Jesus told his apostles that the divorce laws were given by Moses on his own authority, but that "from the beginning" they were not so. That leaves us with the question of what is the law. The law of Noah? The law of Moses? The law of the Jewish judges?

Where did Jesus say Moses gave them the law of divorce on his own authority? The passage I remember said it was given to them "because of the hardness of their hearts".

Paul had a vision of Jesus who sent him on his ministry. That vision is recorded in Acts. But Paul said at 1 Corinthians 11:23 that he "received from the Lord" the establishment of the Eucharist but does not say when or how he received it. It begs the question, "what else did Paul receive from the Lord"?

Not sure what point you're trying to make here... Paul received quite a bit of revelation directly from the Lord (Galatians 1:12, for instance).

Paul also said at Colossians 2:20-23 that at least parts of the law were "the commandments of men", hence said throughout that those "works of the law" do not justify.

I understand those references to be regarding the oral law, also called the traditions, which refer to the teachings of the Rabbi's about the Mosaic Law, not to the Law itself. Am I mistaken?

Paul also identifies Jesus as "a priest forever on the order of Melchesidic". Melchesidic was a priest of the covenant with Noah.

All it says is that Melchizedek is a priest of "the Most High God", neither the Genesis passage nor the Hebrews passages make reference to the Noahic covenant... at least not that I am aware of.

So. Which law?

I am pretty confident that Jesus was speaking of the Mosaic Law and the OT prophets. Is there good reason to believe otherwise?

God bless you;
Michael

 

[Soyeong]

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

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

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

God gave the Mosaic Law for our own good in order to bless us and to guide us in how walk in His ways (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so why would anyone want to escape that fact?

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

In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision. So the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. This means that the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded. The Jerusalem Council did not have the authority to countermand God or to rule against anyone being bound by His law even if that were what they had wanted to do. Paul's problem in Galatians was not with followers of God being taught how to follow His commands as if obedience to God were somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was with people teaching that Gentiles that they needed to obey their man-made works of the law in order to become justified.

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


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

God bless you;
Michael

Dispensationalism is false because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It leads people to try to blame an unchanging God for changing instead of leading people to repent of the fact that they are the ones who have changed. The role of Israel is to be a light to the nations (Matthew 5:13-16, Isaiah 49:6), so for Gentiles, it is about seeing what God is doing through Israel and wanting to become part of that. Jesus set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so we should see what he was doing and those who want to become his followers should seek by faith to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No dilemma exists if tradition that is not in line with all Scripture is forgotten instead of called inescapable.

Yet it is also an inescapable fact that the Apostles taught that we were not bound by the Mosaic Law

The answer to this dilemma

 

[food4thought]

@yeshuaslavejeff @Soyeong
I see... well that's something to think about.

Bed time where I am, so to be continued after church tomorrow.

 

[1213]

...

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

....
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). ..

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

I think you do well, if you don’t reject them. They are both good and correct. Paul doesn’t say that the law is not valid, because he also says for example:

But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully,
1 Tim. 1:8

I have understood the point with “were not under the Law” is that law should not be obeyed because one thinks he must do so, to gain eternal life or salvation. By obeying the law, one is not saved. But, if one loves God, he freely wants to live according to the law, because he understands it is good.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

I person is under the law, he obeys it against his will, because he has to do so. If person is not under the law, he can obey it freely, because he loves God and wants to live correctly. And in Biblical point of view, the whole law is in this:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

 

[Guojing]

In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision.

U are not aware of Exodus 12:48?

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Those Jews in Acts 15:1 was technically correct. They were just unaware that the Gospel of the Kingdom has been postponed after Stephen was stoned.

 

[Soyeong]

U are not aware of Exodus 12:48?

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Those Jews in Acts 15:1 was technically correct. They were just unaware that the Gospel of the Kingdom has been postponed after Stephen was stoned.

Indeed, I was aware of that verse. It requires Gentiles to become circumcised in order to eat of the Passover lamb, but does not require Gentile to become circumcised in order to become justified. Not even Jews were required to become circumcised in order to become justified because that wasn't the purpose for which God commanded all Jews to become circumcised.

 

[food4thought]

In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision. So the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. This means that the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded. The Jerusalem Council did not have the authority to countermand God or to rule against anyone being bound by His law even if that were what they had wanted to do.

Hi, Soyeong, thank you for responding! I think we need to take a closer look at some key verses in Acts 15, though.

Acts 15:4-6 NASB When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. (5) 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.​

Here we see that the issue under consideration was not only circumcision, but also observing the Law of Moses (note they did not just say law, which could have been meaning the traditions, but they specifically said "the Law of Moses"). This is what the Apostles and elders were to render a decision on: circumcision of gentiles AND gentiles observing the Law of Moses. What was their decision?

First, Peter says:

Acts 15:7-11 NASB After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. (8) "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; (9) and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. (10) "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? (11) "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
​

So we see that Peter calls the Law of Moses "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear". Remarkable statement, and what James says about it is conclusive:

Acts 15:19-21 NASB "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, (20) but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. (21) "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
​

So this is what gentiles are commanded. Now it is apparent that there are many moral aspects of the Law of Moses that are reiterated in the NT, but they are NT commands, and that is as far as it goes. The NT is binding on Christians, not the OT Law, for as James says of those who would only keep some of the Law:

James 2:10 NASB For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
​

The Law is a unit. If you are going to keep the Law, keep the whole Law (offerings, penalties for breaking the Law, Sabbaths, feasts, etc.). We cannot even pretend to keep the whole Law today. As the writer of Hebrews rightly says:

Hebrews 8:13 NASB When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.​

Therefore, the Law of Moses as a whole is obsolete, and now has disappeared (since there is no temple). What is left is that which is reiterated in the NT. I don't have to keep the Sabbath. I am not required to keep the kosher laws. I am not to worry about whether my clothing is woven of more than one kind of fabric. Etc., etc., etc. Hope this helps you, Soyeong.

Dispensationalism is false because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. It leads people to try to blame an unchanging God for changing instead of leading people to repent of the fact that they are the ones who have changed.

God has not changed. His character and nature are forever immutable. How God deals with the human race has changed throughout history, though. Adam in the garden. Noah after the flood. Abraham being promised the land. Moses and the Law. And on it goes.

God bless you, Soyeong (and Jeff!);
Michael

 

[Guojing]

Indeed, I was aware of that verse. It requires Gentiles to become circumcised in order to eat of the Passover lamb, but does not require Gentile to become circumcised in order to become justified. Not even Jews were required to become circumcised in order to become justified because that wasn't the purpose for which God commanded all Jews to become circumcised.

Under Judaism, people are justified by being part of the collective, which is the nation Israel.

God himself emphasise to Abraham that his offspring would all need to be circumcised, otherwise they will be cut off from the covenant and hence will no longer be justified. Genesis 17

 

[Soyeong]

Under Judaism, people are justified by being part of the collective, which is the nation Israel.

That thought is precisely why Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again.

God himself emphasise to Abraham that his offspring would all need to be circumcised, otherwise they will be cut off from the covenant and hence will no longer be justified. Genesis 17

There is a difference between saying that we need to do something and that we need to do something in order to earn our justification such that God owes us our justification. Circumcision does not cause anyone to be owed their justification by God, but rather circumcision is an act of faith, and it is by that faith that we are justified.

 

[Guojing]

That thought is precisely why Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again.



There is a difference between saying that we need to do something and that we need to do something in order to earn our justification such that God owes us our justification. Circumcision does not cause anyone to be owed their justification by God, but rather circumcision is an act of faith, and it is by that faith that we are justified.

yep so the point remains, you show faith in God by obeying what the lord commanded and you are justified because of that.

in ages past, you show your faith by undergoing circumcision

But now, you show faith by trusting in Jesus death burial no resurrection.

But the Jews in acts 15 still thought they were at ages past so from their point of view, they were correct

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

OT and NT : Circumcised heart ? How is that ? By whose hand ? By whose Will and Initiative ?

 

[Soyeong]

yep so the point remains, you show faith in God by obeying what the lord commanded and you are justified because of that.

in ages past, you show your faith by undergoing circumcision

But now, you show faith by trusting in Jesus death burial no resurrection.

But the Jews in acts 15 still thought they were at ages past so from their point of view, they were correct

Justification has always been through faith in the Redeemer. In Romans 3:21-22, the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ for everyone who believes, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous.

 

[Guojing]

Justification has always been through faith in the Redeemer. In Romans 3:21-22, the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ for everyone who believes, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous.

So you are another who believes in the "The OT saints were justified by looking forward to the cross" doctrine?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

re justified: Study Bible

James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

James 1:22
Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves.

Deuteronomy 4:1
Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you.

Deuteronomy 5:1
And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.

God's Righteous Judgment
…12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the Law who will be declared righteous. 14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law,…
Berean Study Bible · Download
Cross References
Jeremiah 11:6
Then the LORD said to me, "Proclaim all these words in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, saying, 'Hear the words of this covenant and carry them out.

Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Matthew 7:24
Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

John 13:17
If you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

Luke 7:30
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

 

[BobRyan]

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

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

Note that Jesus has the entire Law and prophets in view here. Note also that He says we are not to "annul" even "the least of these commandments", nor are we to teach others to do so.

Jesus was all about "obey the Word of God" no question about it.


1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" -- Paul
Matthew 19 "keep the Commandments" - Jesus

Eph 6:2 "Honor your father and mother" the 5th commandment "is the first commandment with a promise" in that still valid "unit of ten"

The resurrected Christ said this -
Matt 28
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.”

 

[Soyeong]

So you are another who believes in the "The OT saints were justified by looking forward to the cross" doctrine?

Indeed, faith in the promises of God are of major importance. In John 8:56, Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see his day and was glad. 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 was saved by grace through faith in the same one and only way as everyone else. God had no need to provide an alternative and unattainable means of becoming justified through His law when a perfectly good means was already in place, so the law was never given for that purpose.

 

[Guojing]

Indeed, faith in the promises of God are of major importance. In John 8:56, Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see his day and was glad. 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 was saved by grace through faith in the same one and only way as everyone else. God had no need to provide an alternative and unattainable means of becoming justified through His law when a perfectly good means was already in place, so the law was never given for that purpose.

So if Noah merely believed in God but did not build an ark, would he still be considered justified?