Jesus Never Changes, But What About This?

[swaimj]

Here is an exchange that took place on another thread. The quote is someone else's comment, followed by response. No one ever responded to this as the thread got busy and the comment got lost in the shuffle. Still, I'd like to know how non-dispy's explain the change I describe and what you call such changes.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. Heb. 13:8

I don't disagree with this verse at all. I've never met a dispensationalist who did.

Let me ask a question: Prior to the flood, men were not allowed to kill and eat animals. After the flood, God told Noah that men could eat animals. Then, God told Moses that there were restrictions on what animals people could eat. Then, Jesus taught, followed by the teaching of the apostles that all meat was clean to eat. So, the instructions from God about eating meat changed over time. This is not a case of God changing, for that would contradict the verse above; a verse upon which we all agree. Rather this is a case of a change in.....?

 

[Johnv]

Prior to the flood, men were not allowed to kill and eat animals. After the flood, God told Noah that men could eat animals.

I don't believe that's correct. The consumption of animal flesh appears to have been be permissible since after the expulsion from the Garden. But it even possible we might have been permitted to take flesh for consumption while in the Garden (since Gen doesn't say either way, we don't know).

Then, God told Moses that there were restrictions on what animals people could eat.

Yes, but that was a specific rabbinnic law that was finite in scope and time. That scope and time no longer exists.

Rather this is a case of a change in.....?

Purpose, scope, and time.

 

[DHK]

Purpose, scope, and time.

Hey, I didn't know you were a dispensationalist.

 

[Johnv]

I guess that would make me a dat-pensationalist

 

[swaimj]

I'm at work, so will have to do a little work later to back up my claim about the pre-flood allowance for eating meat.

Even without that, you still have a difference in what is allowed from one "scope and time" to another. You say that a purpose is involved here. What is the purpose? And if God never changes and Jesus never changes, why does the requirement for man change?

 

[Winman]

I am not a dispensationalist, I think the word is misused. The root of dispensation is dispense, which means to deal out or distribute. And in three out of the four verses where this word is used in scripture, that is the clear meaning.

1 Cor 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Here Paul speaks of the dispensation of the gospel. But what is that? He explains in the next verse that he he was to preach or distribute the gospel. It has nothing to do with time.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Same thing here, Paul was given the responsibility of dispensing or distributing the gospel to the Gentiles. Notice in verse 5 that Paul was not the only person who was given this responsibility, it was also given to the apostles and prophets. Peter was actually the first person to preach the gospel to a Gentile.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

So, dispensation speaks of distributing. It is true that the gospel was not preached until a certain point in time. But do not confuse dispensation with times or ages. Dispensation means to dispense or distribute. Times, seasons, and ages speak of time.

I believe it is more accurate to consider times and ages which are shown. There does seem to be divisions in time and ages, and how God deals with men.

I have debated with dispensationalists before, and strongly disagree with them on several points. First, dispensationalists have several gospels, while I believe there is only one. They believe that Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews only, and that this gospel was passed to the apostles (excluding Paul). But this is easily shown false. The apostles directly asked Jesus when he would restore the kingdom and he told them it was not for them to know the "times" or "seasons". So, the Lord did not speak of dispensations, he spoke of times or seasons. If anything, the use of the word "seasons" by the Lord himself would argue there are only four divisions of times.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Peter could not have been preaching that Jesus would restore the kingdom to Israel if they repented as dispensationalists teach, because Peter did not know this. Unless you believe he would be presumptuous and teach something the Lord had not revealed to him. He also told the apostles they would preach to Samaritans and to the uttermost part of the earth, so this was not exclusively given to Paul later.

And Peter spoke of at least two "times" before Jesus would return.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Peter was not preaching the immediate restoration of the kingdom to Israel as dispensationalists believe. Peter said the heaven must receive Jesus until the "times of restitution of all things". So there must be at minimum two times or ages that must take place first. I personally believe this is speaking of the fullness of the Gentiles coming in, and then the Jews who will be saved during the tribulation. Only after these will Jesus return to earth and restore his kingdom.

Sorry, if this is off topic, but I got the impression that this is really what you wanted to talk about. I could be wrong.

I do agree that God has dealt differently with men for certain periods of time, but this can best be studied by looking up times and ages in the scriptures. The word dispensation has been misused and does not really apply to this.

 

[DHK]

I have debated with dispensationalists before, and strongly disagree with them on several points. First, dispensationalists have several gospels, while I believe there is only one. They believe that Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews only, and that this gospel was passed to the apostles (excluding Paul). But this is easily shown false. The apostles directly asked Jesus when he would restore the kingdom and he told them it was not for them to know the "times" or "seasons". So, the Lord did not speak of dispensations, he spoke of times or seasons. If anything, the use of the word "seasons" by the Lord himself would argue there are only four divisions of times.

I have found that there are many stripes and varieties of Calvinists.
The same is true, if not more so, for dispensationalists. Don't lump them all into one boat. I am dispensational in my thinking. But I certainly don't believe how you have characterized them above. There is only one gospel, and always has been. I think what you are describing is an "ultra-dispensationalist." And I don't believe you will find many of them on this board.

 

[Winman]

I have found that there are many stripes and varieties of Calvinists.
The same is true, if not more so, for dispensationalists. Don't lump them all into one boat. I am dispensational in my thinking. But I certainly don't believe how you have characterized them above. There is only one gospel, and always has been. I think what you are describing is an "ultra-dispensationalist." And I don't believe you will find many of them on this board.

Good. I really have no desire to get in long debates with ultra-dispensationalists as you call them. I am totally worn out from debating with Calvinists already.

And you know, I ask myself why go to this trouble. Over the years I have debated with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Pentecostals, you name it. I do not do it because I love to debate. I do it because what we believe is a life and death matter, the wrong belief can take you straight to hell.

But I tell ya, it is a hard road. I have won over a few, but not many. I did get a Catholic friend to see we are saved by trusting Christ without works, and I even got a Mormon to realize his faith was great error.

All that said, I do not think myself infallible. But some error is quite easy to identify. And when I see that I am going to say something.

I am not completely against dispensationalism, I do believe there are different ages or divisions of time myself. But I believe as you that there has been, and will always be just one gospel. But I know for a fact many dispensationalists do not believe this, I have spent a great deal of time debating with them.

 

[Johnv]

What is the purpose? And if God never changes and Jesus never changes, why does the requirement for man change?

The requirement for man didn't change. The requirement for the Jewish people during a specific point in Jewish history changed.

 

[Baptist Believer]

The verse:

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever.

The premise:
Neither Jesus the Person, nor the rest of the Triune God with Whom He shares essence, ever changes in nature, instruction or action.

Contrary evidence:

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Phillipians 2:5-11
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Luke 2:52
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

My conclusion:
I believe Hebrews 13:8 is talking about the character of Jesus, not whether or not Jesus' (or any other Person of the Triune God) instructions/guidance may change throughout the ages.

 

[OldRegular]

Here is an exchange that took place on another thread. The quote is someone else's comment, followed by response. No one ever responded to this as the thread got busy and the comment got lost in the shuffle. Still, I'd like to know how non-dispy's explain the change I describe and what you call such changes.



I don't disagree with this verse at all. I've never met a dispensationalist who did.

Let me ask a question: Prior to the flood, men were not allowed to kill and eat animals. After the flood, God told Noah that men could eat animals. Then, God told Moses that there were restrictions on what animals people could eat. Then, Jesus taught, followed by the teaching of the apostles that all meat was clean to eat. So, the instructions from God about eating meat changed over time. This is not a case of God changing, for that would contradict the verse above; a verse upon which we all agree. Rather this is a case of a change in.....?

Nothing you have said indicates that God changes!

 

[swaimj]

JohnV, here is the verse from Genesis 9:3 that indicates that prior to the flood men ate only plants whereas afterward they were allowed to eat meat.

You may eat any moving thing that lives. As I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

So this is a change that is not specific to the Jews. It is a change that is for all mankind.

 

[swaimj]

Nothing you have said indicates that God changes!

OR, I have not said that God changes. I quoted the verse "Jesus, the same yesterday, today, and forever" from Hebrews and I said I agree with it. I also said that I have never read any dispensationalist or known any dispensationsalist who disagrees with that. Let me be clear

God Does Not Change!

What I have argued is that God changes his requirements for man from time to time in the scriptures. The example I cited was the change in food laws that changes multiple times in the scripture. There really is no debate that this takes place. I could cite many other examples of things that change. The question is, therefore, what do you call this phenomena of change that is evident? Still waiting.....:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

What I have argued is that God changes his requirements for man from time to time in the scriptures.

The dietary laws were only for the Jews.

Other than this, what other requirements are you talking about?

 

[Jim1999]

Years ago, we speculated that with the expanse of the world, parting of seas, there was not enough land to grow the crops needed to feed the growing population. The solution to the eating shortage, animal meat was the most obvious solution. Man's body structure can handle, small amounts of meat, his teeth can readily chew meat along with vegetables and fruit etc.

So, it is not a change in God, but rather a change in man as he develops in an ever-expanding earth.

Just a thought.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[swaimj]

[FONT=&quot]The dietary laws were only for the Jews.

Other than this, what other requirements are you talking about?[/FONT]

Go back and read my opening post. I showed there that God's commands about what man can and cannot eat have changed over time. There is no debate here. I am not asking why they changed. I am asking what you call these changes, theologically.

[FONT=&quot]So, it is not a change in God, but rather a change in man as he develops in an ever-expanding earth.[/FONT]

OK, I guess you missed it. I'll say it again.

GOD DOES NOT CHANGE!

That is not the issue. There is no disagreement on this subject. But God changes his demands/commands/requirements about what man is allowed and not allowed to eat at different times. I am not asking why God does this. I am simply stating the fact that it occurs. Then I am asking What do you call this change?

 

[Winman]

The dietary laws in Leviticus 11 were for the Jews only. Over and over you will see the phrase "unclean unto you". These foods were not necessarily bad for everyone, but they were unclean for the Jew. And it is summed up at the end. It was to sanctify them and make them a separate people.

Lev 11:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

These commands were not for everyone, just the children of Israel. Some foods were clean to them, and some were unclean to them.

Lev 11:3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

So again, some of these foods were not necessarily unhealthy, but for the Jew they were unclean. And you will see that phrase "unclean unto you" over and over in this chapter.

And at the end it tells why.

Lev 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

In the New Testament, as believers were are told to turn from sins. Anybody who thinks they have a free pass to sin as a Christian is wrong.

2 Cor 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
3 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:
4 But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,
5 In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;
6 By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,
7 By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,
8 By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true;
9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;
10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

2 Cor 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

We are supposed to be different from the world, just as the Jews were to be different from the nations around them. They had dietary laws, laws concerning how they dressed, and even how they could cut their hair, or body markings such as tattoos. This was to make them identifiable and separate from the nations around them.

And today as Christians were are supposed to live holy lives and turn from all the sins around us. People should be able to identify us by our behaviour and conduct.

 

[canadyjd]

GOD DOES NOT CHANGE!

That is not the issue. There is no disagreement on this subject. But God changes his demands/commands/requirements about what man is allowed and not allowed to eat at different times. I am not asking why God does this. I am simply stating the fact that it occurs. Then I am asking What do you call this change?

I call it God condesending to His creation in a way that will point them to the truth that salvation for both Jew and Gentile has been established once for all by faith in Jesus Christ.

I hope that answers your question.

peace to youraying:

 

[Bob Alkire]

The dietary laws in Leviticus 11 were for the Jews only.

Yes. But Genesis 9:3 tells us
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
Here God gave Noah permission to eat animals.
The Mosaic Law taught that the Israelites could not eat certain foods. Under the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), we may again eat any foods (Rom. 14:14; 1 Tim. 4:3). http://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1486631#_ftn1
http://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1486631#_ftnref1

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Here is an exchange that took place on another thread. The quote is someone else's comment, followed by response. No one ever responded to this as the thread got busy and the comment got lost in the shuffle. Still, I'd like to know how non-dispy's explain the change I describe and what you call such changes.



I don't disagree with this verse at all. I've never met a dispensationalist who did.

Let me ask a question: Prior to the flood, men were not allowed to kill and eat animals. After the flood, God told Noah that men could eat animals. Then, God told Moses that there were restrictions on what animals people could eat. Then, Jesus taught, followed by the teaching of the apostles that all meat was clean to eat. So, the instructions from God about eating meat changed over time. This is not a case of God changing, for that would contradict the verse above; a verse upon which we all agree. Rather this is a case of a change in.....?

Hebrews 13:8 refers to His ontological nature, not His will.