Does Jesus still keep the Mosaic Law?

[Ron Amnsn]

Remember, that one is supposed to eat whatever is put in front of them at the dinner table of a host - demurring only in the fact that one must give the Lord thanks for the food.

Sez so in the book.

If you read the Book without any regard for the context, one could possibly come to that conclusion.

Tell me jasd, if Paul taught that a person was to eat anything that was set before them by a host, when Paul got to Berea how did the Bereans confirm that teaching from the Old Testament Scriptures?

[Ron Amnsn]

In Paul's day the believers weren't wondering whether they should eat unclean meat or not -- the answer to that was clearly laid out in the Old Testament Scriptures, the only Scriptures available at that time, the same Scriptures of which Paul wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17)

What people were wondering about in Paul's day was whether it was alright to eat food that may have been sacrificed to idols. When you live in a pagan city and buy food in the public market you don't know whether it has been offered to idols. Paul's answer was that an idol isn't really anything, so the food itself would still be good food, if you don't know that it has been offered to idols. Don't ask. But if you are told that it has been offered to idols, Paul instructs the believers to not eat it, even if it is placed before you by a gracious host.

So Paul deals with a questionable situation while still upholding the teachings of the Old Testament. His instructions are also in agreement with what Jesus spoke against the church of Pergamum where some were teaching "to eat things sacrificed to idols." (Rev 2:14)

If someone serves you unclean meat, that is not a questionable situation. Scripture is clear about unclean meat. It is not food. Lev 11 says that unclean sea creatures, birds, and insects are an abomination. Lev 20 says we are not to make ourselves an abomination by eating any unclean food, and includes avoiding unclean foods as part of being holy as God is holy. In the New Testament 1Peter 1:15-16 quotes from that part of Lev 20 when it says, "but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "You shall be Holy, for I am holy." Also, Rev 21 makes it clear that nothing unclean or anyone who practices abominations will enter the holy city. That agrees with what Isaiah 66 says about those who eat swines flesh and other abominations before the new earth is established.

[cheddar]

This is no different than what the Judaizers taught in Acts.

It was heresy then and it's hersey now. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17) As much as you would like to think that old covenant and new covenant are the same or compatible they most definitely are not.

All the false religions of the last days will come under one banner and that banner will be called 'Babylon'. The false idea that man can save himself by his own works. This belief rejects the free gift of Salvation that Paul and all the disciples taught. The old covenant was the epitome of 'righteousness by works' and that is why is was replaced.

[skyblue888]

There are people today living under the terms of the old covenant just as there were people in the Old Testament who lived under the terms of the New Covenant.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

This is no different than what the Judaizers taught in Acts.

The Judaizers in Acts were requiring the Gentiles to submit to the man-made traditions of Jewish "oral law" before being accepted into fellowship. That's different than being obedient to the God of creation and following the example of Jesus, who lived according to God's OT Law.

[Ron Amnsn]

It was heresy then and it's heresy now.

As I understand it "heresy" would be anything that differs from whatever is considered to be "orthodox". So what is considered to be heresy depends on what you consider to be orthodox. In the beginning of Christianity Jesus was considered to be the standard of what was orthodox, but that changed about a hundred years later.

For the first hundred years after the resurrection of Jesus it was the Jewish congregation of believers in Jerusalem that was considered "orthodox" -- the same congregation that was zealous for the Law of Moses. They were the ones that the Gentile congregations (such as Antioch) sent to for advice about things like circumcision for Gentile converts.

Then after the second Jewish revolt (AD 135) all the Jews were banished from Jerusalem (which was renamed by the Romans) and a Gentile was appointed leader of the "church" in Jerusalem. It was during this time of Roman persecution of the Jews that Christianity abandoned the Law of Moses and any other practices that might look Jewish enough to subject them to the special taxes and treatment that the Romans had for Jews. Soon it was those Christian churches that had abandoned the Law of Moses that were considered "orthodox". Those believers who persevered in living like Jesus and the apostles (according to the Law of Moses) were rejected by the Christian "church" in the Roman empire, although they remained until at least the 4th century in the churches of the East. This is all documented in the classic work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon.

So you think it is heresy to live the way Jesus lived and to teach others to do the same?

I still consider Jesus to be orthodox.

[Ron Amnsn]

The kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17)

How do you define righteousness? Do you define it differently than the way Jesus lived?

The Scriptures that Paul endorsed tell us what happens when someone is filled with the Holy Spirit-- they become obedient to God's Law:

"Therefore say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries among which you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. When they come there, they will remove all its detestable things and all its abominations from it.

"And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.

"But as for those whose hearts go after their detestable things and abominations, I will bring their conduct down on their heads," declares the Lord GOD." (Ezekiel 17-21)

"For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.

"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

"You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God. Moreover, I will save you from all your uncleanness; and I will call for the grain and multiply it, and I will not bring a famine on you." (Ezekiel 36:24-29)

[Ron Amnsn]

The false idea that man can save himself by his own works. This belief rejects the free gift of Salvation that Paul and all the disciples taught. The old covenant was the epitome of 'righteousness by works' and that is why is was replaced.

You apparently don't understand the 'old' covenant.

God didn't even give the Law to the Israelites until after they were already redeemed from Egypt. Which of the Old Testament heroes rejected the free gift of Salvation or tried to establish his righteousness on his own works? Did David? Certainly not. Did Moses? No, Moses was a murderer totally dependent on the grace of God. How about Elijah, or Samson? No.

Grace is an Old Testament concept, as is forgiveness as well as salvation that is given as a gift.

Remember, Jesus said that the Old Testament Scriptures testified about Himself. It's true.

[cheddar]

Originally Posted By: cheddar

This is no different than what the Judaizers taught in Acts.

The Judaizers in Acts were requiring the Gentiles to submit to the man-made traditions of Jewish "oral law" before being accepted into fellowship. That's different than being obedient to the God of creation and following the example of Jesus, who lived according to God's OT Law.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Acts 15:5

That does not say man-made traditions. It says the Law of Moses or the Torah. The same heresy that you’re teaching.

If this had been a group of Protestants gathered together to consider this matter it would be obvious that they were saying what you are saying. It says so in plain English.

However, the people at this meeting weren't Protestants, they were Jews. Also, it wasn't written in English. Then there's the problem that your interpretation of this passage disagrees with so much of the rest of Scripture. God's Word doesn't disagree with itself, so we need to dig a little deeper.

The passage starts out by identifying the men who rose up as Pharisees rather than as just Jews. That's significant. What made the Pharisees different than the other sects of Jews? Was it that they kept the Law of Moses? No, this meeting was being held in the Jerusalem congregation where every Jew was described as being zealous for the Law of Moses (Acts 21). The thing that made the Pharisees different from the other sects of Jews was that they observed the man-made traditions of the Pharisees rather than the man-made traditions of the other Jewish sects.

What did the Pharisees teach was the proper process for bringing Gentile proselytes into God's covenants with Israel? That process had been the status quo for as long as anyone could remember. These believing Pharisees weren't trying to introduce something new, they just wanted to keep dealing with proselytes in the same time-honored way everyone was used to. That process, which the Pharisees used to bring in proselytes, provides the context for the discussion in Acts 15. Unfortunately, most Gentiles have no clue what that process entailed.

[Ron Amnsn]

For a Gentile to choose to become a Jew was a very serious step. Because the Jews believed in community responsibility, they didn't want to bring anyone into the community prematurely who might transgress the Torah and bring guilt on the Jewish community.

The process that the Pharisees developed for supposedly turning a Gentile into a Jew involved a year of instruction in both the Law of Moses and the man-made traditions of the 'oral law' that the Jewish sages had developed to guard the Law of Moses so that a person would never come close to breaking God's law. The process culminated in ritual circumcision done according to man-made traditions (even if the man was previously circumcised by other methods), a promise to keep all the Law (both the written Torah and the oral traditions), and if possible, offering a sacrifice at the Temple.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Acts 15:5

In this verse the phrase "to command" comes from the Greek word parrangello, which is also translated "to instruct". The phrase "to keep" comes from the Greek word tereo which is also translated as "to guard".

So it is quite possible that the believing Pharisees were saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them (according to our traditional methods) and to instruct them to guard the Law of Moses."

The apostle Paul was already instructing the Gentiles from the OT Scriptures, and urging the Gentiles to follow his own example and the example of Jesus (both were Torah-observant). The Gentiles were hearing the Scriptures read every Sabbath in the synagogues. But the Pharisees knew that Paul's Gentile converts would never learn to follow the man-made traditions of 'oral torah' by simply reading the Scriptures. The Gentiles would have to receive careful instruction in order to properly guard the Law of Moses with the additional man-made traditions that had been developed for that purpose.

[cheddar]

Wow, you act as if the temple is still standing and the last 2000 years never happened!

But don’t worry I have a feeling we’re going to see another temple on earth and you’re going to fit right in.

Unfortunately, you are missing the bigger picture. The earthly temple and the Israelites were chosen by God to be an object lesson for the whole world and they completely failed and were rejected by God. Before Christ the earthly temple had significance but since his ascension the heavenly sanctuary has replaced it. Before Christ the Israelites had significance but their time is passed and now it’s the Christians time (even though their track record is no better than the Jews).

The new Jews (Christians) follow Jesus by faith into the new Jerusalem (heavenly sanctuary) and are under the new covenant. The old Jews reject Jesus and faith and still live in old Jerusalem and are still under the old covenant. New is better than Old.

[cheddar]

The apostle Paul was already instructing the Gentiles from the OT Scriptures, and urging the Gentiles to follow his own example and the example of Jesus (both were Torah-observant). The Gentiles were hearing the Scriptures read every Sabbath in the synagogues. But the Pharisees knew that Paul's Gentile converts would never learn to follow the man-made traditions of 'oral torah' by simply reading the Scriptures. The Gentiles would have to receive careful instruction in order to properly guard the Law of Moses with the additional man-made traditions that had been developed for that purpose.

Paul’s entire life revolved around the gospel not the Torah. The good news of salvation by faith. He could have cared less about the old covenant and the Torah and he said so many times. There were a few times where he pretended to care about the Torah but that was just to win over the unbelieving Jews. He said that he became all things to all men that he might win some over. The Jews who were ‘zealous for the Law’ were the ones constantly trying to kill him.

[Ron Amnsn]

The earthly temple and the Israelites were chosen by God to be an object lesson for the whole world and they completely failed and were rejected by God.

The first part of your statement is true: the Israelites were chosen by God and the temple was built at Jerusalem because it was chosen as the place where God would place his name.

I used to believe the rest of your statement, until I searched the Scriptures to find out if it was true. There are several passages of Scripture that directly contradict your statement, but that's a topic for another thread.

[Ron Amnsn]

Paul’s entire life revolved around the gospel not the Torah. The good news of salvation by faith. He could have cared less about the old covenant and the Torah and he said so many times. There were a few times where he pretended to care about the Torah but that was just to win over the unbelieving Jews. He said that he became all things to all men that he might win some over. The Jews who were ‘zealous for the Law’ were the ones constantly trying to kill him.

There were some Jews who didn't believe in Jesus who tried to kill Paul, but there were also tens of thousands of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah and were zealous for the Law.

Pretending to care about Torah doesn't work to win over Jews. If Paul was foolish enough to try that, he would have been just a fraud.

Where do you get the idea that the Gospel that Paul preached was separate from following Torah like Jesus did?

It is evident that you could not care less about the Torah or the 'old' covenant, and you have apparently projected that attitude onto Paul. Paul didn't say anything that could not be said with full integrity by a sincerely Torah-observant follower of Jesus.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Remember, that one is supposed to eat whatever is put in front of them at the dinner table of a host - demurring only in the fact that one must give the Lord thanks for the food.

Sez so in the book.

>>If you read the Book without any regard for the context, one could possibly come to that conclusion.

Tell me jasd, if Paul taught that a person was to eat anything that was set before them by a host, when Paul got to Berea how did the Bereans confirm that teaching from the Old Testament Scriptures?<<

Well, perhaps I was a bit too hasty and should have qualified my statement, to wit:

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; v29 That you abstain from anything offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, ... Fare ye well.

The context for the above text, as well the following, is New Testamental, and they are pretty straightforward...

Lu 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye may enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you,

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat al things: ... v6 He that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks.

1 Cor 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, [that eat], asking no question for conscience sake: ... v27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to] a [feast] and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

The NT is self-descriptive in that it is a New Covenant - for the OT is fading obsolete - else where is the need for the new? New Covenant, new laws, new priesthood, etc.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant] he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

>>when Paul got to Berea how did the Bereans confirm that teaching from the Old Testament Scriptures?<<

There is 'scripture', there is 'tradition', and there is 'present, and/or revealed knowledge'. I suppose that Saint Paul was diligent in teaching the Bereans.

[Ron Amnsn]

Well, perhaps I was a bit too hasty and should have qualified my statement, to wit:

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; v29 That you abstain from anything offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, ... Fare ye well.

The context for the above text, as well the following, is New Testamental, and they are pretty straightforward...

There's more to Acts 15 than what you quoted, but let's trim it down to the basics. The Pharisees wanted the Gentiles to be taught "something" that Paul apparently didn't agree with. The Jerusalem Council decided against the position of the Pharisees, listing only four requirements for new Gentile believers.

Jesus commanded his followers to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;" (Matt 28) Is there anybody who really thinks the four requirements listed for Gentiles in Acts 15 would make the Gentiles mature disciples? Are those four requirements the only things that Jesus taught his disciples? Obviously not. Those four things are just the beginning of the process of becoming a disciple of Jesus.

Jesus expected the "nations" or Gentiles to be taught all the same things that his Jewish disciples were taught. The decision reached in Acts 15 applied only to the Gentile believers, not to the Jewish believers. So, I think we can deduce that the decision of the Jerusalem Council does not overturn anything that Jesus taught his Jewish followers, and that after the Gentiles are "saved" they are expected to grow in knowledge, faith, and obedience until they are fully discipled like the Jewish disciples.

Otherwise you'd end up with a race-based split in Christianity where the Jews were actually following the example and teachings of Jesus and the Gentiles were only following the four requirements decided in Acts 15. It would be impossible to maintain unity in the body of Christ is such a situation.

If the "something" that the believing Pharisees wanted to teach the Gentile converts was only the Law of Moses, then your interpretation could be valid, if it could be proven that Jesus never taught his disciples to follow the Law of Moses and if it could be shown that the Law of Moses truly was a yoke that the Jews and their forefathers had been unable to bear. However, the evidence in Scripture shows that Jesus actually did teach his followers to follow His example (which was living according to the Law of Moses), and the evidence in Scripture shows that the Law of Moses was not an unbearable yoke.

The evidence also shows that the Pharisees did not differentiate sufficiently between God's Law as written in the Law of Moses and the man-made traditions of 'oral law' to enable the Pharisees to teach only the Law of Moses without any additional man-made laws.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Well, perhaps I was a bit too hasty and should have qualified my statement, to wit:

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; v29 That you abstain from anything offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, ... Fare ye well.

The context for the above text, as well the following, is New Testamental, and they are pretty straightforward...

>>There's more to Acts 15 than what you quoted, but let's trim it down to the basics.<<

Indeed. However, be that as it may, Acts 15:28, 29 goes straight to the heart of the matter in delivering the crux of Acts 15; that is, "no greater burden than these..." Whatever else we may think that Jesus Christ taught His disciples as meant for an enlargement upon those requirements in Acts 15 - we may consider it suppositional, as the HG was specifically named as party to the ecclesiastical.

>>The Pharisees wanted the Gentiles to be taught "something" that Paul apparently didn't agree with.<

Yes, by no small disputation Saints Paul and Barnabas seemed to reject the requirements of a Mosaic circumcision.

>>Jesus commanded his followers to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;" (Matt 28) Is there anybody who really thinks the four requirements listed for Gentiles in Acts 15 would make the Gentiles mature disciples? Are those four requirements the only things that Jesus taught his disciples? Obviously not. Those four things are just the beginning of the process of becoming a disciple of Jesus.<<

That may be, however, text is very specific. It may be that it is hoped that whatever succeeds or follows after the four requirements are to the good, but text leaves one to view it as entirely volitional.

>>Jesus expected the "nations" or Gentiles to be taught all the same things that his Jewish disciples were taught.<<

I think that the words "observe all that I commanded you" is somewhat opaque and suggests that 'what was commanded of you to teach' may be a valid interpretation.

>>The decision reached in Acts 15 applied only to the Gentile believers, not to the Jewish believers. So, I think we can deduce that the decision of the Jerusalem Council does not overturn anything that Jesus taught his Jewish followers,<<

Did not Jesus Christ teach His followers, inclusively, that there was a New (different) Covenant?--that shifted the High Priesthood from Levi to Judah Hebrews 5:10) and which accepted Gentiles as priests?--an entirely 'non-Mosaic' order... And, speaking of a new prieshood:

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

If the Mosaic Law had been still in effect, Jesus Christ, a Jew/Judahite, would have broken it by becoming High Priest.

>>and that after the Gentiles are "saved" they are expected to grow in knowledge, faith, and obedience until they are fully discipled like the Jewish disciples.<<

More than likely, moreso than the Jewish disciples.

>>Otherwise you'd end up with a race-based split in Christianity where the Jews were actually following the example and teachings of Jesus<<

Currently, "a race-based spit in Christianity", as you put it - does not appear to present a problem. You'll note that very few Jews have become Xtians.

I think that Jeremiah demonstrated, by breaking that vessel by the entry to the east gate - that there would no longer be a 'Kingdom House of Judah/Jews', but that its Tribal 'House' would thereafter be joined together with Kingdom Ephraim. Moreover, I think Writ informs us that Xtianity for the most part is of the Lost sheep of the House of Israel/Ephraim together with the Tribal House of Judah. Of course,

that is not to say that there are no other Gentiles apart from true Israel (which includes Judah) incorporated into Israel per se (grafted onto the olive tree, if you will).

>>and the Gentiles were only following the four requirements decided in Acts 15. It would be impossible to maintain unity in the body of Christ is such a situation.<<

It would should the followers of Jesus Christ take to heart the injunction against judging another man's servant...

>>If the "something" that the believing Pharisees wanted to teach the Gentile converts was only the Law of Moses, then your interpretation could be valid,<<

"If"? Acts 15:1 states specifically that the Judahizers spoke only to the issue of circumcision, which was the Law of Moses. Verse 2 verifies: "and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (Acts 15:2)

>>if it could be proven that Jesus never taught his disciples to follow the Law of Moses and if it could be shown that the Law of Moses truly was a yoke that the Jews and their forefathers had been unable to bear. However, the evidence in Scripture shows that Jesus actually did teach his followers to follow His example (which was living according to the Law of Moses), and the evidence in Scripture shows that the Law of Moses was not an unbearable yoke.<<

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

There is difference between 'zealous for the Law' and "neither our fathers nor we were able to bear".

>>The evidence also shows that the Pharisees did not differentiate sufficiently between God's Law as written in the Law of Moses and the man-made traditions of 'oral law' to enable the Pharisees to teach only the Law of Moses without any additional man-made laws.<<

Matt 23:! Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Matt 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

Matt 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do;

[Ron Amnsn]

The context for the above text, as well the following, is New Testamental, and they are pretty straightforward...

Lu 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye may enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you,

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat al things: ... v6 He that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks.

1 Cor 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, [that eat], asking no question for conscience sake: ... v27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to] a [feast] and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

What do you mean by "New Testamental"? Is that term defined in Scripture? You seem to be using it to mean "something that disagrees with the Old Testament".

When the context of the Scripture fragments that you quoted is examined, it reveals that those fragments don't support the idea that God changed his mind about what was food and what was detestable, what was clean to eat and what was unclean and should not be eaten.

For instance, Luke 10:8 happens before the death of Jesus. Does any Christian teach that the Law of Moses was made obsolete before the death of Messiah? If Jesus had been teaching his followers that it was okay to disregard the Law of Moses, he would have disqualified himself as the Messiah in the eyes of any faithful followers of God.

Luke 10:8 is part of the logistical instructions that Jesus gave to the seventy before he sent them out to the cities he was planning to visit later. Let's look at the context in detail.

First Jesus tells them what to do at "whatever house" they enter:

"Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house.' If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you [literally "the things supplied by them", as opposed to things you might supply yourself if I hadn't commanded you to leave your bag behind.]; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house."

Then in verse 8 (the verse you quoted) Jesus broadens the context from "whatever house" to "whatever city" they enter:

"Whatever city you enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you [literally "eat the set before you"]; and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.'

Here Jesus is repeating the same instructions about letting the people of the house supply your food, except in the scope of a city.

Notice that Jesus said, "whatever house" and "whatever city" but he didn't say eat "whatever", and he certainly didn't say eat "whatever abominations" are set before you. If you believe you are supposed to eat anything that is set before you, it would be interesting to see what happens when someone sets a plate of rocks or a plate of dog droppings in front of you.

Which brings us back to the context of verse 8. Jesus specifically told the seventy to say to people, "The Kingdom of God has come near to you". While the "Kingdom of God" is a rather vague idea to most Protestants, it was not a vague idea to the Jews in the towns where Jesus sent the seventy. The OT prophets had repeatedly prophesied that a time would come when God would restore his kingdom to Israel. Righteousness would be restored and the people would follow God's Law. If the seventy had gone out preaching that "the Kingdom of God has come near to you" while eating that which was prohibited by the Law of Moses, they would have been ignored or laughed out of town. Everyone knew that when "the Kingdom of God" came it would be a time of obedience, a time when unclean things were removed, not a time of rebellion against God's law.

Which brings us again to the context of verse 8. The towns that the seventy were sent to were towns where Jews lived. When they entered the town proclaiming "the Kingdom of God", it would be those who were faithfully looking forward to God's kingdom who would invite the disciples into their homes. The other people who ate detestable and unclean things had no interest in the Kingdom of God. There was virtually no chance that the seventy would be served unclean food in the towns where Jesus was sending them.

Then Jesus contrasts the cities where the seventy would be accepted with the cities where they would not be accepted:

"But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.' I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city. Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades! The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."

Then the seventy come back and report to Jesus:

"The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.”

Notice that they didn't come back saying, "Wow, Lord. That pork they served us was great!! Who would have thought that abominations could taste so good!".

And Jesus responds:

And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.”

Notice that Jesus does not say, "I have given you authority to ignore, disobey, or change the Law of Moses."

At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

Turning to the disciples, He said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see, for I say to you, that many prophets and kings wished to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them.”

Okay, I know that many kings and prophets wished to see the Messiah come, but which of them who were longing for Messiah to come were also wishing to see people eating abominations in Israel and otherwise breaking the Law of God?

[Ron Amnsn]

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: ... v6 He that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks.

[Ron Amnsn]

>>when Paul got to Berea how did the Bereans confirm that teaching from the Old Testament Scriptures?<<

There is 'scripture', there is 'tradition', and there is 'present, and/or revealed knowledge'. I suppose that Saint Paul was diligent in teaching the Bereans.

That's what is so important about what we are told about the folks at the synagogue in Berea. They weren't commended for just accepting whatever Paul taught them-- rather they were commended for searching the Scriptures to see whether the things Paul taught them were true. (Acts 17)

Whether Paul was teaching 'scripture' or 'tradition' or 'present truth' or 'revealed knowledge' the Bereans tested it all to see if Paul's gospel agreed with the already existing Scriptures. We know the Scriptures they searched were the Old Testament because the New Testament wasn't yet available, and even if parts of the NT had been available at that time, those NT writings wouldn't have been used as "Scriptures" in a Jewish synagogue.

Because of the diligence of the noble Bereans we know that the Gospel that Paul preached did not contradict what was found by searching the Old Testament Scriptures. If your interpretation of Paul's writings contradicts the Old Testament scriptures, then it is apparent that your interpretation is not in agreement with the Gospel that Paul taught at Berea (and in all the assemblies) and was confirmed by the Bereans from the OT Scriptures.

To do as the Bereans did is what we should do when someone comes along teaching something that is purported to be 'present truth' or 'revealed knowledge' or 'tradition' or an interpretation of the New Testament. We should diligently compare it with what God has previously revealed in Scripture, starting at the beginning of the Scriptures.

[Ron Amnsn]

The NT is self-descriptive in that it is a New Covenant - for the OT is fading obsolete - else where is the need for the new? New Covenant, new laws, new priesthood, etc.

It looks like you may be equating the Old Testament with the old covenant. The term "Testament" really does mean "covenant", but when applied to the Hebrew Scriptures it is a misnomer. The part of the Bible that we call the "Old Testament" is not a covenant. Although a portion of the Old Testament does contains God's covenants, most of the Old Testament is historical writings, prophecy, poetry, etc.

The verse you are referring to, Hebrews 8:13, doesn't say anything about "obsolete" in the Greek. It says "be made old" and "aging". The same word is used in Hebrews 1:11 (quoted from Isaiah 51:6) to refer to the foundations of the earth, which are still vital today. Jesus clearly stated that none of the written law would pass away until heaven and earth pass away and until all is accomplished. (Matt 5.17)

Where does the Bible say that the "new covenant" has "new laws"? What's wrong with the laws that God gave to the Israelites?

When God makes a "new" covenant with his people, it doesn't nullify the previous covenants. When God made the covenants with Abraham, it didn't nullify the covenant that God made earlier with Noah and the animals. In Galatians 3:17 Paul explicitly states that when God gave the Law to Israel it did not nullify the earlier covenant given to Abraham.

Often the assumption is made that the "new covenant" nullifies the "old covenant", but there is no scriptural support for that assumption. The pattern in Scripture is that the newer covenants incorporate older covenants. That appears to be the case with the "new covenant" because the terms of the "new covenant" are not laid out anywhere in Scripture, and the only difference in terms that is actually stated in Scripture between the old and new covenants is that God takes responsibility for writing his instructions on our hearts, whereas in the old covenant it was the people who had the responsibility to put the instructions on their hearts (Deut 6:6).

Also, a fairly good argument can be made that the Greek word used for "new" in the New Covenant can also mean "renewed".

The "new priesthood" that you mention isn't all that new. The priesthood of Melchizedek's order was around in the days of Abraham. And way back in the time when the psalms were written Messiah was already declared to be a "priest forever" (Psalm 110:4). So the Melchizedek priesthood and the Levitical priesthood are concurrent. Christ's priesthood is better than the Levitical priesthood, but that doesn't mean that the Levitical priesthood is defective.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The context for the above text, as well the following, is New Testamental, and they are pretty straightforward...

Lu 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye may enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you,

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat al things: ... v6 He that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks.

1 Cor 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, [that eat], asking no question for conscience sake: ... v27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to] a [feast] and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

>>What do you mean by "New Testamental"?<<

I used it more conversationally than recitationally.

>>Is that term defined in Scripture?<<

I think it extrapolates well enough to be self-definitive.

>>You seem to be using it to mean "something that disagrees with the Old Testament".<<

In a manner, yes; however, more in the way of "New..." in contradistinction.

>>When the context of the Scripture fragments that you quoted is examined, it reveals that those fragments don't support the idea that God changed his mind about what was food and what was detestable, what was clean to eat and what was unclean and should not be eaten.<<

Why not?--He'd changed it since His formerly pronounced: "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Gen 9:3) However, given the timeframe you are referencing - it was done particularly as it concerned certain peoples - and not the entirety of mankind. And then, by Jesus Christ's own words, some of which I shared, He changed it again - inasmuch as the Mosaic laws are no longer applicable per se.

Things change, as did the locale of the Tabernacle, the laws governing one's abode on the Seventh-day Sabbaths, priestly services in the 2nd Temple sans the Ark, etc. The OT is a veritable testimony to change, as was Jesus Christ.

I agree that Jesus Christ Gd perceived those who were still clinging to ancient Jewish laws as distinct from others; however, He was moving in another direction - which direction found the Mosaic laws of Torah vanishing and inapplicable.

(When the term Mosaic Law is used - it is being used re the Torah, yes?--that is, any and all laws within the Torah... the whole shebang and not just the Decalogue, right?)

>>For instance, Luke 10:8 happens before the death of Jesus.<<

Indeed, however, re the NT birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ vis-a-vis claims of the continuity of the laws of the Torah - one might consider the very specificity of the text and ponder - this speaks to the ending of the aion, the age, and that which went before...

Anyway, getting back to the food issue of Luke 10:8 - one wishing it were otherwise would have to infer such as: they'd been instructed to go only unto the cities of Kosher Jews, which were nonexistent. The Jews were not in possession of a Kosher city, being under Roman rule. Verse 3 "Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves." does not seem to indicate such - unless we take it to mean that Jesus Christ sent them to Kosher Benjamites, an impossible exposition.

>>Does any Christian teach that the Law of Moses was made obsolete before the death of Messiah?<<

Ahh, Xtians are so elliptic; however, Writ testifies that during His ministry - Jesus Christ was vigorously changing at least the intent of many of the laws - with the denouement of their obsolescence. For example: His explications re the intent of the heart as concerns adultery and murder, etc. And, per the matter of divorce, He took an unequivocal stand against the Mosaic law; so, given His authority, one may say that He made the matter of divorce pre Moses - obsolete.

>>If Jesus had been teaching his followers that it was okay to disregard the Law of Moses, he would have disqualified himself as the Messiah in the eyes of any faithful followers of God.<<

Better He should have displayed hypocrisy? "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." (Mark 7:15) Non, authority was His to act upon as He saw fit to excercise it; He had come to fulfill the law, that is, to meet its requirements - and to institute a New Covenant. To institute that which is New, one containing diametric differences, the Old would have to be superceded - to vanish, to become fading obsolete... leaving only that incorporated within the New. Else, there are two Covenants with resulting tension.

He was the nexus that differentiated two ages - and two Covenants.

One cannot tweak the specificity of Luke 10:8. One can only seek to understand it. It seems more a variance allowed by Jesus Christ for a matter of greater importance than food and drink. Remember, His mission was that of the sword - to sever the adherence to surface facades from their moorings?--to draw men more to the greater matters of the heart. Anyway, Jesus Christ did not seem to overmuch worry about how others perceived Him vis-a-vis cultural norms; that is not to say that He purposefully engaged in acts of extreme outre.

[jasd]

>>Notice that Jesus said, "whatever house" and "whatever city" but he didn't say eat "whatever", and he certainly didn't say eat "whatever abominations" are set before you.<<

Lu 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye may enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you,... Nope, no mention of "abominations"; just "eat what is set before you".

Luke 10:8 has been selected as the text to advance, as one expects that those Jews sent out would check for a Mazuzah before entering a house - there being many Pagans, Samaritans, Romans, etc who also lived in the land; however, last I heard, no Mazuzah is nailed to the gate of a city. As worded, the text leaves the ideation that anyone, Kosher Jew, Pagan, Samaritan, or Roman could have proved hospitable and given food to weary travelers...

>>If you believe you are supposed to eat anything that is set before you, it would be interesting to see what happens when someone sets a plate of rocks or a plate of dog droppings in front of you.<<

I'd be in a rocky place in deep doo-doo. However, there is no seriousness to that hypothetical, as it would also not have ben countenanced when Gd said, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Gen 9:3)

The Mosaic laws governing the diet of the Jews and of Israel obtained until Gd divorced Israel and broke the Kingdom of Judah. Thence foreward, for the one it is a matte of simple loss and for the other - a clinging to that which provides comfort.

>>While the "Kingdom of God" is a rather vague idea to most Protestants, it was not a vague idea to the Jews in the towns where Jesus sent the seventy.<<

Remember, that Jesus Christ's instructions to the seventy were to go to "every city and place, whither He Himself would come." (Lu 10:1) Those cities and places would have included those of the Samaritans - who also, were familiar with the 'Kingdom' concept. Many were part Jewish and many were familiar with their Jewish heritage.

They were not bound by the Mosaic laws and would set before their guests nonKosher foods.

>>If the seventy had gone out preaching that "the Kingdom of God has come near to you" while eating that which was prohibited by the Law of Moses, they would have been ignored or laughed out of town.<<

As you've pointed out - the issue of eating Kosher presented no problems where there was a Mazuzah upon the doorpost - so, no danger of being laughed out of town by their hosts. As for the cities and places that were nonKosher - the fact that the 'travelers' ate what was set before them would not be reason for their hosts to laugh.

>>Which brings us again to the context of verse 8. The towns that the seventy were sent to were towns where Jews lived. When they entered the town proclaiming "the Kingdom of God", it would be those who were faithfully looking forward to God's kingdom who would invite the disciples into their homes. The other people who ate detestable and unclean things had no interest in the Kingdom of God. There was virtually no chance that the seventy would be served unclean food in the towns where Jesus was sending them.<<

Lu 10:1 ...every city and place, whither He Himself would come.

Jesus Christ went to Samaria - and to the Gaderenes.

>>Then Jesus contrasts the cities where the seventy would be accepted with the cities where they would not be accepted:<<

Jesus Christ was not accepted in the City of Zion, but was crucified. It was not the cities of the Samaritans that crucified Him.

>>Then the seventy come back and report to Jesus:

"The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.”

Notice that they didn't come back saying, "Wow, Lord. That pork they served us was great!! Who would have thought that abominations could taste so good!"<<

Prolly had no idea what pork was, just: "Oh bless our fathers who sleep!--that meal in the Samaritan town next to the old well - the meal with cream of mushroom soup and leeks was Fantastic! I wish someone in my house knew how to prepare it." (while Jesus Christ rolled His eyes)

>>Notice that Jesus does not say, "I have given you authority to ignore, disobey, or change the Law of Moses."<<

He had already done so: "And into whatsoever city ye may enter and they receive you, eat what is set before you," (Lu 10:8)

>>Okay, I know that many kings and prophets wished to see the Messiah come, but which of them who were longing for Messiah to come were also wishing to see people eating abominations in Israel and otherwise breaking the Law of God?<<

Are you proffering that "kings and prophets" of Israel and Judah did not break the "Law of Gd'? "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all." (Js 2:10)

>>which of them who were longing for Messiah to come<<

Umm, we speak of David?