Are we living fully in the New Covenant?

[NaphtaliPress]

George Gillespie’s comment drawing upon Augustine while directed toward uncommanded holy days, alludes to the general reason Jewish observances were borne with for a time:

Two other reasons the apostle gives in this place against festival days. One (v. 17), What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? Another (v. 20), Why should we be subject to human ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are all holy days to be condemned, as taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the apostle says militates as well against them as against any other holy days. For whereas it might be thought that the apostle does not condemn all holy days, because both he permits others to observe days (Rom. 14:5), and he himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts (Acts 18:21), it is easily answered, that our holy days have no warrant from these places, except our opposites will say that they esteem their festival days holier than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of which they do acknowledge. And if they did, yet they must consider, that that which the apostle either said or did hereanent [hereabout], is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine’s simile runs.3 So that all this can make nothing for holy days after the full promulgation of the gospel, and after that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the apostle will not bear with the observation of days in Christian churches who have known God, as he speaks.—George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 2014), 53.
1. Calvin, Comm. in illum locum. judicare hic significat culpæ reum facere. [CR 80 (CO 52), col. 110.; Commentaries, vol. XXI, 2.191.]
2. Zanchius, Comm. ibid. [Col. 2:16; cf. 1601 ed., 409; cf. Opera, 6.303.]
3. [Cf. Augustine’s Letter 82 to Jerome, NPNF1 1.355; cf. Migne, PL 33.282.]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Peter,

To be Torah observant one must adhere to the dietary laws of the Old Covenant. Paul's rebuke of Peter recorded in Galatians 2 proves that Paul did not think the dietary restrictions were valid in the New Covenant. Your assertion that Paul was Torah observant is not valid.

As does the command, by the Lord, to "kill and eat" to Peter and the declaration that all foods are now clean (noted in the Gospels as well).

 

[Justified]

So only Gentiles and not Jews get to fully enjoy the liberty of the gospel...?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There was a clear thread of engagement with temple worship. I have read Reformed commentary on these verses and I find them to be insufficient. Paul clearly was sending a message that he was Torah observant. Do you agree with this or not?

I deny it. I believe Paul was not Torah observant to the degree that the Law demands. When it suited his purposes he participated in ceremonies that he still had access to but that he, himself, understood to be passing away. In Romans 14-15 (as well as some discussions in the Epistles), he makes plain that both the dietary laws and "sabbaths" (Jewish holy days) are "esteemed" by some with a weak faith that makes it a sin for them to participate in them. He says plainly that all foods are clean but it depends upon the conscience of the individual as to whether or not he would be able to eat foods or disregard certain feast days in faith. That is the Jewish convert may still be unable to receive non-Kosher food in thankfulness or ignore a day he was once commanded was holy. This is not the demand of the Torah. It does not leave observance of dietary laws and feast days (sabbaths) to the conscience of the individual. If, as you claim, Paul was a Torah-observant Jew, he would have drawn out *clearly* that for some it is a sin precisely because they are still bound to such regulations.

Thus, by moving from the plain (the Epistles where he talks about feast days and foods) to the less than plain (where he participates in a feast) it is clear that he considers his participation in a feast one he can "take or leave". He is able, for the Gospel's sake, to be an observant Jew when he so wishes but his faith is strong enough so that he considers all foods clean and is at liberty to eat "unclean" foods or abstain from eating unclean foods if it would cause another brother to stumble.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?

In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.

Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.

If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.

I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.

 

[pkananen]

Admittedly, this is a difficult text. First, we have to be willing to admit that the apostles made mistakes--even grievous errors. Peter is exhibit A on this score.

Sure, I agree they made mistakes. But Acts is not exactly a NT version of Judges where everyone makes a mess and the text offers no opinion on the morality of the parties involved and we sort it out. James and Paul made a conscious decision to take an action to provide evidence of Paul's Torah observance. That is exactly that the text says: "Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law."

I personally think it possible that Paul erred in circumcising Timothy. Paul and Barnabas' division seems sinful from the text in Acts 15--not the division itself but the mode of disagreement. From the fact that the Judaizers hailed from the Jerusalem church district allows the inference that the Jerusalem church leaders might have compromised in some ceremonial matters; if they had been utterly stalwart then the Judaizers would've had less political clout.

You are welcome to your opinion. However, I've been accused of bring presuppositions to this discussion. Might there be some presupposition in your opinions about the actions that Paul should have taken as well?

Second, v. 24 is the key verse in your argument. However, this is a vow/oath/personal covenant--the text says nothing of sacrificial offerings. I think the disciples--including Paul--erred in this decision. They sought to pacify the Jews by this action...and it backfired!

Actually, it's virtually assured that they were completing a Nazarite vow. This was not a personal vow. If it was personal, it would mean nothing for Paul to participate in it. Here's the description of the vow in scripture. There was plenty of sacrificial blood shed, and heads were indeed shaved. And Paul funded it all!

13*“And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has been completed: he shall be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, 14*and he shall bring his gift to the LORD, one male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one ram without blemish as a peace offering, 15*and a basket of unleavened bread, loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers smeared with oil, and their grain offering and their drink offerings. 16*And the priest shall bring them before the LORD and offer his sin offering and his burnt offering, 17*and he shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of peace offering to the LORD, with the basket of unleavened bread. The priest shall offer also its grain offering and its drink offering. 18*And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance of the tent of meeting and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire that is under the sacrifice of the peace offering. 19*And the priest shall take the shoulder of the ram, when it is boiled, and one unleavened loaf out of the basket and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them on the hands of the Nazirite, after he has shaved the hair of his consecration, 20*and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD. They are a holy portion for the priest, together with the breast that is waved and the thigh that is contributed. And after that the Nazirite may drink wine.
21*“This is the law of the Nazirite. But if he vows an offering to the LORD above his Nazirite vow, as he can afford, in exact accordance with the vow that he takes, then he shall do in addition to the law of the Nazirite.”

Third, compromise can be fatal to the church. A quick survey of Church History reveals this. We are officers in the PCA; if you do not see some compromise in our denomination then spectacles are in order.

Fourth, the disciple’s sinful acquiescence does not constitute strong support for your argument. In fact, it weakens it.

Again, there are potential presuppositions in your statements. Paul and James did not see this as compromise, but you do. You call their actions sinful. They did not. They were actually concerned about Jewish believers zealous for the law knowing that the Apostle to the Gentiles was not compromising his Jewish calling and identity!

If Paul is trying to pacify the Jews here so they don't get mad or to "become as a Jew", then why did he write an entire book of the Bible to the Galatians about the hypocrisy that Peter had about differing behavior between Jews and Gentiles?

 

[pkananen]

So only Gentiles and not Jews get to fully enjoy the liberty of the gospel...?

Not "under the law" means not under the curse of the law. In Christ, they are free to pursue the law as a delight!

Psalm 1:2
but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

Psalm 40:8
I delight to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart.”

Psalm 119:70
their heart is unfeeling like fat,
but I delight in your law.

Psalm 119:77
Let your mercy come to me, that I may live;
for your law is my delight.

Psalm 119:92
If your law had not been my delight,
I would have perished in my affliction.

Psalm 119:174
I long for your salvation, O LORD,
and your law is my delight.

 

[pkananen]

Question: does Acts 21 teach that Paul was "Torah observant," or does it show - like when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3 - that he was concerned about not causing unnecessary offense to those who would have expected certain things because he was a Jew?

As I've mentioned, this argument makes Galatians a strange book for Paul to have written.

 

[pkananen]

Peter,

To be Torah observant one must adhere to the dietary laws of the Old Covenant. Paul's rebuke of Peter recorded in Galatians 2 proves that Paul did not think the dietary restrictions were valid in the New Covenant. Your assertion that Paul was Torah observant is not valid.

As does the command, by the Lord, to "kill and eat" to Peter and the declaration that all foods are now clean (noted in the Gospels as well).

Except that Peter was so confused by this vision it took him quite a bit of thinking to figure it out! And if this was taught in the gospels, then how did he not know it already? I'm sorry, but the meaning of this passage is quite clear just a few verses later:

28*And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

 

[pkananen]

Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?

In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.

Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.

If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.

I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.

This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.

The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.

Matthew 12:1-14

12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

A Man with a Withered Hand
9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

 

[Phil D.]

Peter, from what I can tell you appear to essentially be parroting and/or advocating much of Hebrew Roots theology. Is this the case?

 

[arapahoepark]

Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?

In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.

Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.

If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.

I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.

This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.

The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.

Matthew 12:1-14

12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

A Man with a Withered Hand
9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

Ever heard of threefold division of the law? Look into it.

 

[pkananen]

Peter, from what I can tell you appear to essentially be parroting and/or advocating much of Hebrew Roots theology. Is this the case?

Yes, it's certainly an influence. I do not agree with all of strains, teachings/teachers, emphases, etc. It's a diverse, young movement that is attempting to revive faith in Israel as in the days of the Apostles. But there is a renewed interest in post-supersessionist Christian theology in general, and this is not an exclusively Jewish interest. Check out http://www.mjstudies.com/

I think the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations has a statement of faith that most of us would have few issues with:

http://www.umjc.org/statement-of-faith/

 

[pkananen]

Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?

In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.

Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.

If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.

I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.

This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.

The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.

Matthew 12:1-14

12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

A Man with a Withered Hand
9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

Ever heard of threefold division of the law? Look into it.

Yes, I have heard of it. I'm arguing that the Apostles didn't recognize the distinctions and continued all three divisions of the law. In short, it's a theological construct that I find to be without merit for the Jewish believers in the NT. Obviously Gentile observance was treated differently.

 

[arapahoepark]

Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?

In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.

Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.

If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.

I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.

This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.

The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.

Matthew 12:1-14

12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

A Man with a Withered Hand
9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

Ever heard of threefold division of the law? Look into it.

Yes, I have heard of it. I'm arguing that the Apostles didn't recognize the distinctions and continued all three divisions of the law. In short, it's a theological construct that I find to be without merit for the Jewish believers in the NT. Obviously Gentile observance was treated differently.

So you're basically in agreement with Mark Nanos and dispensationalism. You are arguing for heresy. The heresy that Paul refuted. Give Galatians a thorough read why don't ya.

 

[Phil D.]

Yes, it's certainly an influence.

For those interested, here is a mostly contra HR resource.

 

[pkananen]

Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?

In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.

Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.

If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.

I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.

This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.

The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.

Matthew 12:1-14

12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

A Man with a Withered Hand
9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

Ever heard of threefold division of the law? Look into it.

Yes, I have heard of it. I'm arguing that the Apostles didn't recognize the distinctions and continued all three divisions of the law. In short, it's a theological construct that I find to be without merit for the Jewish believers in the NT. Obviously Gentile observance was treated differently.

So you're basically in agreement with Mark Nanos and dispensationalism. You are arguing for heresy.

I have read some of his work and have found it interesting. I don't know a lot about him and I doubt he considers himself a dispensationalist. I am not a dispensationalist myself. Very few in the Messianic community would embrace dispensationalism because dispensationalism is an attempt to reconcile continuity between the Old and New covenants in a way that is generally understood differently in MJ theology.

This is the part I do not understand about the Reformed community. As soon as you suggest anything other than amillennialism (or maybe begrudgingly 'historical' pre-mil) the Dispensational card gets whipped out in 2 seconds. There is more variation than Covenant/Dispensational and it's hard to even talk about it without people freaking out.

 

[rickclayfan]

If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.

"So much study and reflection on the subject is bound up with [Scripture] that no person can possibly do it alone. That takes centuries. To that end the church has been appointed and given the promise of the Spirit’s guidance into all truth. Whoever isolates himself from the church, i.e. from Christianity as a whole, from the history of dogma in its entirety, loses the truth of the Christian faith. That person becomes a branch torn from the tree and shrivels, an organ that is separated from the body and doomed to die." ~ Herman Bavinck

"Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility." ~ Charles Spurgeon

 

[Peairtach]

Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?

In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.

Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.

If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.

I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.

This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.

The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.

Matthew 12:1-14

12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

A Man with a Withered Hand
9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.

Ever heard of threefold division of the law? Look into it.

Yes, I have heard of it. I'm arguing that the Apostles didn't recognize the distinctions and continued all three divisions of the law. In short, it's a theological construct that I find to be without merit for the Jewish believers in the NT. Obviously Gentile observance was treated differently.

So you're basically in agreement with Mark Nanos and dispensationalism. You are arguing for heresy.

I have read some of his work and have found it interesting. I don't know a lot about him and I doubt he considers himself a dispensationalist. I am not a dispensationalist myself. Very few in the Messianic community would embrace dispensationalism because dispensationalism is an attempt to reconcile continuity between the Old and New covenants in a way that is generally understood differently in MJ theology.

This is the part I do not understand about the Reformed community. As soon as you suggest anything other than amillennialism (or maybe begrudgingly 'historical' pre-mil) the Dispensational card gets whipped out in 2 seconds. There is more variation than Covenant/Dispensational and it's hard to even talk about it without people freaking out.

What about postmil? There are plenty in the Reformed community who reject dispensationalism and are postmil and believe in a national conversion of the Jews. E.g. Charles Hodge. See his Systematic Theology.

What about Wilhelmus a Brakel, who predicted that the Jews would return to their old homeland? Was he Reformed? He wasn't Dispensational or Hebrew Roots.

Baruch Maoz is a Christian and Reformed retired Jewish pastor who has written a book refuting the errors of Messianic Judaism.

The idea that those who espouse Covenant Theology haven't thought and written about how the Jews "fit in" is erroneous. They've come to varying conclusions on that, within the parameters of CT, but that diversity is found with a number of eschatalogical issues. Presumably the Lord doesn't want us to "write history in advance".

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[SolaScriptura]

Question: does Acts 21 teach that Paul was "Torah observant," or does it show - like when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3 - that he was concerned about not causing unnecessary offense to those who would have expected certain things because he was a Jew?

As I've mentioned, this argument makes Galatians a strange book for Paul to have written.

How so?

 

[timfost]

Peter,

If I could offer something for your consideration. In general, if I start to consider a doctrine that I cannot find any support for through reformation history, my default position is to hold it in question, knowing that I have a lot to learn. This is not because the reformers "got everything right," but I know that they dedicated their life to study. I have not. I have seen "new" doctrines tear a church apart. I'm not saying that what you are espousing will do that or that it is your intention, but I would caution you to tread very carefully with the mentality that says "I am probably wrong," not "I have a lot to teach you all."

I don't want to jump in the middle of this discussion, but I think some of your assumptions lack information and rely on prejudice. I was taken back by your reference to Luther. Yes, the reformation technically started with him, but please notice some of the differences that distinguish Luther from what we consider "reformed":

1. Luther tried to reform the Catholic church from within. Reformed theology threw out the Catholic system and started afresh.
2. Luther practiced "occasional theology." The Reformed practiced "systematic theology."

It seems to me that as you accuse of bias in CT and reformed systematics, your foundation is in part built off of bias and misinformation, as if one person embodied the reformation (Luther being one of the last people I would look to for understanding reformed theology as we know it).

Hope this helps...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Question: does Acts 21 teach that Paul was "Torah observant," or does it show - like when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3 - that he was concerned about not causing unnecessary offense to those who would have expected certain things because he was a Jew?

As I've mentioned, this argument makes Galatians a strange book for Paul to have written.

How so?

Ben,

Peter stated earlier:

If Paul is trying to pacify the Jews here so they don't get mad or to "become as a Jew", then why did he write an entire book of the Bible to the Galatians about the hypocrisy that Peter had about differing behavior between Jews and Gentiles?

Of course, the problem is that Paul did not write the Book of Galatians about the hypocrisy that Peter had about differing behavior between Jews and Gentiles.

Peter has already "filtered" Galatians through the Hebrew Roots Movement theology and, consequently, even Galatians can only confirm and not correct his aberrant theology.

As I was driving in today, I was thinking how sad it is to have this view of theology because it really does distort one's view of a fairly pivotal book in the NT about the fact that the dividing wall has been removed from Jew and Gentile.

It reminds me of something I heard in condemnation of those who ordain women as Pastors that if you can make Paul's writing mean: "I do permit a woman to teach..." then you can get the Bible to say anything.

Likewise, having studied Galatians several times, if you can come away from reading Galatians believing that Paul is really saying that there is both Jew and Gentile in Christ then you can get the Bible to say anything.