Featured NT Establishing the OT

Perhaps the most important continuation to be aware of, and follow, is ...

Proverbs 28:13
“He who covers his sins will not prosper,
but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy.

1 John 1:7-10
"But IF we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
IF we confess (and repent of) our sins, He is faithful and just
to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."

Doing this ... maintains our righteousness before the Lord, i.e. it keeps us in God's grace!

May the Lord's blessings be upon thee during this weekend.
.

 

So then even by the view you state above the pre-cross "Commandments" mentioned in Mark 7:6-13 include the TEN Commandments to which the Jewish leaders were expected to comply according to Mark 7 and the teaching of Christ.

I don't see any way around that.

Even by the view above - the "pre-cross" commandments of Christ are in the context of the OT - pre-cross rules "If you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15 as the quote to the Jews of the same Ex 20:6 command "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments".

As for all the world accountable to the Law of God -

In Lev 18 God says that pagan nations are destroyed by God for violating certain codes of scripture and Israel is warned that they are subject to the same principle.

In Romans 3 - Paul says "All the WORLD" Jewish or not, pagan or not is held accountable to the Law of God -

Rom 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


Is this "the Law of Christ" - supposedly at odds with the "Law of God" - the Ten Commandments?


Romans 7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Paul is quoting from the TEN Commandments - He is not quoting from one of the gospels.

The same goes for Eph 6.
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”

This is a direct quote of the 5th commandment not found anywhere in the Gospels with this exact wording.

And it is "the first commandment with a promise" only in context of the Ten Commandments. If you look at the OT it is not the first promise in the books of Moses or in the book of Exodus. Nor is it the first promise in the Gospels or in the NT.

This only works if one takes what the Bible itself calls the UNIT of the "Ten Commandments" where the Bible says "He spoke these TEN words" and then says "HE added no more".

Is it any wonder that the "Baptist Confession of Faith", the Westminster Confession of Faith, Thomas Watson's views of the Ten Commandments, and the Seventh-day Baptist view of it - (as well as D.L Moody's acceptance of the TEN Commandments) - is so consistent with the points made above from Eph 6 and Romans 3?

In Acts 21 the entire idea that the OT ceremonial law is dead - was brought up.

Acts 21
17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law


My question for you - is how this Acts 21 could have been agreed to by Paul given your opening statement above. It should not be there.

In Mal 3 God says "I do not change" in Heb 13 Paul says "Jesus is the SAME yesterday today and forever"

In Is 66:23 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" in the New Heavens and New Earth.

In Matt 5 does Christ say His work is to magnify the Law of God, to comply with it perfectly -- or replace it?

God's moral laws are prescriptive. They are like a 55 MPH speed limit. Going 55 does not negate the law.
God's ceremonial laws are predictive. Once the predicted event happens they are no longer in effect.

The "Baptist Confession of Faith", C.H. Spurgeon et al -- make that same distinction in the laws of God as recorded in scripture.


in Christ,

Bob

 

In 1 John 3:4 we are told that "sin is transgression of the Law".

In 1Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the commandments of God".

So then the question to be answered is "what is the Law of God" and "what are the commandments of God" -- because by both OT and NT standard - this is what "defines what sin is" -- which then gets us to the point of your texts above.

in Christ,

Bob

 

This is a perfect example of the purpose of the law. The primary purpose of the law in the NT is not to keep it but to show us that we are sinners as this verse teaches.

This verse has no meaning except in the context it is written in.
The context of the chapter is marriage.
The context of the verse is circumcision.
The verse is not germane to this discussion.

Christ came to fulfill the law.
The purpose of the law is to show us our sinfulness.
The law is a teacher to lead us to Christ. Read Galatians chapter three.

 

So then clearly "The teaching of Christ" pre-cross which includes John 14:15 quoting Ex 20:6 saying "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments" is an OT consistent teaching even by the rule you state above.

Now what is amazing is that in Matt 28 Jesus said that under the NT system the Apostles were to "19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen"

So then in the case of "at least" Matthew and John (if not also Luke and Mark) -- the very writing of the Gospel accounts after the resurrection of Christ is part of obeying that command to "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;"

And yet the Mark 7 and John 14:15 pre-cross teaching of Christ is precisely what is rejected in certain of the dispensationlist models - yet it is the very thing that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ARE teaching in obedience to the Mat:t 28:20 command of Christ post-cross.

The "Sola scriptura" model of Acts 17:11 is obviously a case of testing NT doctrine by OT scripture.

The OT is repeatedly affirmed in the NT as the "scripture" text of the NT authors.

And as pointed out in Eph 6:1-4 - it is a distinctive quote of the OT commandment not found anywhere in that form in the Gospels - that is the authoritative commandment for NT saints.

The NT saints were absolutely reading from and teaching from "Scripture" as if it were authoritative according to the text of the NT.

2 Tim 3
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The NEW Covenant in Heb 8 is taken verbatim from Jeremiah 31:31-33.



in Christ,

Bob

 

Here is the Acts 21 scenario again -


In Acts 21 the entire idea that the OT ceremonial law is dead - was brought up.

Acts 21
17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law


My question for you - is how this Acts 21 could have been agreed to by Paul given your opening statement above. Acts 21:17-23 should not even exist!

In Mal 3 God says "I do not change" in Heb 13 Paul says "Jesus is the SAME yesterday today and forever"

As for OT laws predicted to continue far beyond the NT age.

In Is 66:23 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" in the New Heavens and New Earth.

============================

Now if we redo that Acts 21 scenario in a dispensation-compatible form it goes something like this --


In Acts 21 the entire idea that the OT ceremonial law is dead - was brought up.

Acts 21
17 And when we had come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law

And then saith Paul to them "verily the accusation they are making is every bit correct. That is exactly what I am doing. Telling both Jews and Gentiles that the entire OT system of laws is no longer valid and the commandments and laws that we have today - are only that which we Apostles tell you as a commandment from Christ". Thus I will not do anything as if to disprove this charge - rather I gladly affirm it and more than this - I am more than a little confused that the Christian church leadership in Jerusalem had not been informed of this change in the new dispensation".

===========================

In other words - the Acts 21 scenario as written in scripture - cannot even exist if the dispensationalist model of what was coming out of the Apostolic church in Jerusalem after Pentecost is even remotely correct.

I don't see any way around this.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Then why don't you keep them?

Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

 

Originally Posted by BobRyan
In 1 John 3:4 we are told that "sin is transgression of the Law".

For the lost it defines the need of salvation - declaring all the lost to be doomed without the Gospel.

But for the saved "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God". 1Cor 7:19

As also John points out in 1John 5:1-4.

No change from Paul to John in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Without context your verse is as helpful as:
Psalms 14:1..."There is no God."

There is context. You ignore it.

Are you sure you want to go there?
Whosoever is born of God overcomes the world, and this is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith.
This passage speaks of faith; not the law. The two are contrary to each other.
The law condemns; faith saves.

 

In Gal 2 the issue is "not eating at the same table" with Gentiles - which is not a command in the OT - it is "the traditions" of the Jews and in fact it violates the OT commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 which Paul himself upholds in Romans as a law still binding.


Quoting directly from the OT LAW of God (from Exodus 20 and from Lev 19:18) upholding it in the NT - as being authoritative and to be "fulfilled" in the actual life of obedience in the actual NT saints.

Romans 13
9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Christ already condemned this idea of invalidating OT law by using man-made tradition. Paul seems to be keeping that same rule in Galatians 2.

[FONT=&quot]Mark 7[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER';(Exodus 20:12) and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the Word of God by your traditionwhich you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''[/FONT]

 

But as for the case of dispensationalism - I ask how it survives the Acts 21 scenario again.

I think this is a pretty big indicator that the dispensationalist view is missing something.

 

This is another point that is going untouched as it shows that the dispensationalist view of the Law of God - the Commandments of God - is missing a few Bible details in the NT that indicate that it is not entirely correct.

==========================================


Romans 7
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Paul is quoting from the TEN Commandments - He is not quoting from one of the gospels.

The same goes for Eph 6.
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”

This is a direct quote of the 5th commandment not found anywhere in the Gospels with this exact wording.

And it is "the first commandment with a promise" only in context of the Ten Commandments. If you look at the OT it is not the first promise in the books of Moses or in the book of Exodus. Nor is it the first promise in the Gospels or in the NT.

This only works if one takes what the Bible itself calls the UNIT of the "Ten Commandments" where the Bible says "He spoke these TEN words" and then says "HE added no more".

Is it any wonder that the "Baptist Confession of Faith", the Westminster Confession of Faith, Thomas Watson's views of the Ten Commandments, and the Seventh-day Baptist view of it - (as well as D.L Moody's acceptance of the TEN Commandments) - is so consistent with the points made above from Eph 6 and Romans 3?

 

Romans 3?
Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

All of the above works are consistent in that they show the law as pointing to man as a sinner that needs a Savior. The purpose of the Law is to show that man cannot keep it; he needs a Savior.

 

This does not negate "If you love me, keep my commandments", it only serves to prove that it can only be love that causes us to do so.

 

Of course as Paul points out in Romans 8:6-8 the lost will always complain that they cannot keep the Law of God.

[FONT=&quot]Rom 8[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7 because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God;[/FONT][FONT=&quot] for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]does not subject itself to the Law of God[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for it [/FONT][FONT=&quot]is not even able to do so[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]



I never dispute that point that Paul makes in Romans 8.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Can anyone fully keep the law.
Even this law? What does it take to "fully love our neighbor as ourselves"?
Our neighbor is the world.
If I truly loved my neighbor as myself, I would sell all that I have, give to the poor, deny myself and follow Jesus. IOW, I would go to the farthest reaches of the world where Christ has not been named (perhaps countries like Saudia Arabia, Northern Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many other such nations, especially those Islamic nations that are under Sharia law). In Syria a sixteen year old boy was beheaded for not denying Christ and accepting Islam.
These are your neighbors. These are the people that need the gospel. These are the ones that need to be loved. "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you knew you needed the gospel wouldn't you want someone to tell you about it?

 

Hopefully all can agree to reject the nonsense suggestion that we should only quote and affirm those portions of scripture that are "easy to take" and reject quoting and affirming any scripture that is difficult, challenging, not tickling to the ears.

I know this is incredibly obvious to all - but at times the obvious simply has to be stated.

in Christ,

Bob