Featured NT Establishing the OT

In the text it is the Jews that HAVE become Christians that are the issue.

It is the Christian Jews that are said to be "zealous for the Law".

I think we both agree that Acts 21 is long after Pentecost.

It looks to me like your position hinges on Acts 21 being an issue about non-Christian unconverted Jews wanting Paul to keep the OT law as a non-Christian Jew might be expected to do.

The text says this -

[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT]


James is concerned that the whole Jerusalem church is going to want to have a general meeting now that Paul has come to town.
[FONT=&quot]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.

It is the saved - Christian Jews that James is concerned about.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
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[/FONT]
[/FONT]
James is claiming that the saved Christian Jews have the wrong information about Paul. James claims that the accusations about Paul are false.

The Dispensationalist view claims that the accusations against Paul - are true.

I don't see any way around that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Life doesn't work like that, and God especially doesn't work like that. That's like saying "lets play tennis... if I get the most points, I win, if you get the most points, I win." No one would play with you if you operated like that, and God would not be Just if he operated like that. That is inconsistent and a good example of arbitrary lawlessness.

Obeying the commandments of God is not salvation, but those who are truly saved do it. It is like this; muslim men wear turbans... I see a man wearing a turban... he must be muslim. The flaw in the logic is that others besides muslims also wear turbans. Sikhs wear them, and non-religious middle eastern people also wear them. Wearing a turban doesn't make you muslim, just like following God's commandments doesn't make you saved. Muslim men do often wear turbans, just like saved people often follow God's commands, but unsaved people also follow God's commands from time to time, and that doesn't make them saved.

And that's what following the commands and good works are for a believer - an outworking of the internal righteousness that you've obtained by faith. Works don't save or unsave you, just like wearing a turban doesn't make you a muslim, and not wearing one doesn't make you a non-muslim. But muslims do often wear turbans, and true believers do often follow God's commandments.

 

Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 just as John insists in 1John 5:1-4. Christ Himself insists on it in John 14:15 when He quotes Ex 20:5 "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments" right out of the Ten Commandments.

This is not "keeping the commandments so the lost can earn salvation" because no amount of keeping the Commandments of God will make up for sinning. And all have sinned.

As Paul points out in Romans 8:6-8 the lost cannot keep the Law of God - but the saints do walk in obedience to it "by the Spirit putting to death the deeds of the flesh" Romans 8.

The lost cannot do that. But the saints can because as Paul reminds us in Hebrews 8 the New Covenant "writes the Law on the heart and on the mind" just as Jeremiah 31:31-33 stated.


In Romans 2:13-16 Paul makes it clear that "it is not the hearers of the Law that are just before God - but the doers of the LAW WILL be justified...on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge".

I stand corrected.

We seem to be saying the same thing at that point.

Again we seem to be saying the same thing on that one point.

John argues by contrast that the one who claims to be saved and yet does not walk as Christ walked - does not keep His commandments - is lying. 1 John 2.

Matt 18 describes "forgiveness revoked"
Gal 5:4 describes being "severed from Christ" and "Fallen from Grace"
Ezek 18 describes the same forgivess revoked them.

Are you saying that you have another way to solve that? "retro-deleting former assurance" maybe?

You seem to agree with the fact that the lost do not earn salvation by obeying God's Word and you seem to accept that the saints ARE supposed to obey the Word of God.

Where your point seems to be open to question is how it fits with what the Bible says happens to the one who claims to be a Christian and yet does not "Keep His commandments" as John specifically addresses that point in 1John 2.

1 John 2
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Your comment that not keeping the commandments - and not walking as He walked should not matter because we did not earn our way into salvation by keeping the Word of God as a lost person, seems to fail the test of 1John 2.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Paul did in fact tell the Gentile believers not to be circumcised as prescribed by the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1-3) and he did in fact tell the Jews who embraced the gospel that they were not justified by keeping the Law of Moses and did not have to keep the Law of Moses to be justified but were justified by faith in Christ's life that satisfied all the demands of the Law FOR JUSTIFICATION in their behalf.

The issue here was not justification, nor was it Gentile Christians, but JEWISH Christians. There was nothing wrong in being circumcised and obeying the ceremonial laws as long as the Temple was still standing JUST AS LONG AS THEY WERE NOT DOING IT FOR JUSTIFICATION BEFORE GOD.

There was nothing wrong with the Law as long as you used the Law for what God designed it for. He did not design it for justification (Rom. 3:19-20) or for obtaining eternal life (Gal. 3:21) but simply as a "school master" to teach the knowledge of sin and thus lead you away from justification by your own obedience of the Law to justification by Christ's obedience for you.

Hence, as long as the temple stood, the Jewish Christian could obey the ceremonial rites (vows) in connection with the temple and not violate the Christian faith IF he did not do it for justification. However, the Gentile Christian should not be circumcised or submit to any of the Law of Moses as that conveyed to the lost Jew that such was necessary to be justified before God.

This context has to do with JEWISH CHRISTIANITY not GENTILE CHRISTIANITY.

 

They are asking that Paul refute that accusation by participating in the Ceremonial act of taking a vow and paying for others to do so with him. Thus proving by example that the charges were false that he was teaching no such thing.

(Note they do not ask him to refute the charge by honoring his Father and Mother or by not coveting etc).



1. The accusation: [FONT=&quot]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.

2. The counter claim by the Apostolic church in Jerusalem after Pentecost: [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]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[/FONT].

3. The method that would PROVE the counter claim to be correct and the accusation to be false:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]vs 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[/FONT]

The above statement is the Apostle James and the leaders of the post-Pentecost Apostolic Jerusalem Church.

The James and the leaders of the Jerusalem church are certainly believing Jews. But their concern is about other believing Jews "who have been told" something about Paul.

And the church leaders want Paul to help them "prove" that what these Christian Jews "have been told about Paul" is utterly false.


[FONT=&quot]2. The counter claim by the Apostolic church in Jerusalem after Pentecost: [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]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[/FONT].

In that statement the Church leaders are trying to prove that Paul has nothing to recant because he is NOT teaching what they are accusing him of teaching. That is the language being used - I don't see a way out of it.

That statement -- cannot even happen as the position of the post-pentecost apostolic position of the Jerusalem Church - if you consider the dispensationalist model to be correct.

I don't see any way around that.

But in your statement you claim that the church leaders were trying to Get Paul to either admit that the accusation was true - or to disguise his message better or ?? Not sure what your point is.

Where the text says that there is "nothing to the accusation" -- you respond with "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]They were believing Jews attempting to get Paul to recant what he was teaching,
in Christ,


Even the accusations of the non-Christian Jews against Paul were not true.

BTW - Acts 25
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 7 When he had come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood about and laid many serious complaints against Paul, which they could not prove, 8 while he answered for himself, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.


Acts 26
[/FONT]
19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. 21 For these reasons the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. 22 Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come— 23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”
[FONT=&quot]

Acts 28[/FONT]
17 And it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews together. So when they had come together, he said to them: “Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans, 18 who, when they had examined me, wanted to let me go, because there was no cause for putting me to death. 19 But when the Jews spoke against it, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar, not that I had anything of which to accuse my nation. 20 For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening.

Luke 16 Christ said "If they do not hear Moses - neither will they listen though one rises from the dead"


Bob
[/FONT]

 

Paul said that the OT saints were baptized AND drank from the same unchanging spiritual "ROCK" (Petra) - Christ.

1Cor 10


1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


Heb 4:2
2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it

Gal 1:6-11 argues that this is the SAME Gospel because there is only ONE Gospel

Gal 3:7 "The Gospel was preached to Abraham"

Heb 13 "Christ is the SAME yesterday today and forever".

Every single example Paul gives of quoting the "Commandments" and/or "The Law" is from Moses.

Paul argues "Do we then make VOID the LAW by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law" Rom 3:31

And Paul makes an interesting case for the continued authority of the TEN Commandment law in Eph 6 that is impossible to ignore.

(And that fits perfectly with the "Baptist Confession of Faith" on that same point of the TEN Commandments).

Eph 6
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.”

The translators put it in quotes - this full quote of the 5th commandment is NOT found in the teaching of Christ in the Gospels - it is found in the TEN Commandments Ex 20:12. And it is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" in the TEN Commandment unit that was kept "Alone" inside the ark --- no other scripture there. In Deut 5 and 6 "He spoke these TEN words" and "He added NO more".

Thus Paul could say in Eph 6 that this unit is still binding AND he could even state "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 when he contrasts OT ceremonial law to OT moral law.

Notice that in Acts 21 not only does Paul take a ceremonial vow - and pay for others to join him in doing so - but in Acts 16 he has Timothy circumcised.


With such practices by Paul and with such a one-Gospel context claimed by Paul for the OT and NT - you CAN have the Acts 21 debate just as it reads.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

In that case the "accusation" above "is true" and Paul's honest response should have been.

And then Paul replied:

"Wonderful! Let the assembly meet. I gladly confess that the accusation against me by my fellow Christian Jews in Jerusalem is completely TRUE!

"I want all to know that I have been teaching the same thing that this post-pentecost Apostolic Church in Jerusalem has been teaching - which is that we are supposed to be forsaking of the Mosaic Law--for another--Christ! A Christ unknown to the scriptures as we have them today - so we are writing entirely new scripture".

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

I think we can all agree that this is not what Paul did - rather Paul participates in the OT ceremonial vow - paying for others to join him and then adds these statements in his "defense" against the charges by even non-Christian Jews.

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

[FONT=&quot]Acts 25
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 7 When he had come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood about and laid many serious complaints against Paul, which they could not prove, 8 while he answered for himself, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.


Acts 26
[/FONT]
19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. 21 For these reasons the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me. 22 Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come— 23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”
[FONT=&quot]

Acts 28[/FONT]
17 And it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews together. So when they had come together, he said to them: “Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans, 18 who, when they had examined me, wanted to let me go, because there was no cause for putting me to death. 19 But when the Jews spoke against it, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar, not that I had anything of which to accuse my nation. 20 For this reason therefore I have called for you, to see you and speak with you, because for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. [/FONT]


With such claims by Paul regarding the Prophets, the Law of Moses, and "the customs of our Fathers" -- you CAN have the Acts 21 debate just as it reads.

 

Consider the case in Romans 14.

Paul argues that the list of annual feast days in Lev 23 is regarding among some NT Christians such that "one observes one day ABOVE the others" and that yet another will observe "every day" in that list.

In that context where just like Paul who stops to observe the "days of unleavened bread" some are still observing those OT annual feast days and Romans 14 states that they are not to be condemned for it. This goes far beyond keeping the Moral Law of God - the TEN Commandments - the UNIT of Law in which "the FIRST commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandment.

Acts 20
4 And he was accompanied by Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus, and by Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. 5 But these had gone on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas. 6 We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.


In such a "context" you CAN have the Acts 21 debate just as it reads.

 

Consider the case of Acts 13.

Paul is preaching the Gospel from Sabbath to Sabbath in the Synagogue to both Jews and Gentiles just as he does on Acts 17 and Acts 18. But in Acts 13 there is a division between most of the Jews vs the Gentiles - where the Jews are primarily rejecting the Gospel.

What happens next??? What does Paul say to the gentiles (in that Act 13 Sabbath sermon - held in the synagogue ) to the gentiles who are accepting the Gospel (while the Jews reject it)? Does he say "hey come to our week-day-1 gathering place tomorrow and you can hear more about the Gospel. No need to keep riling up these Jews who are just rejecting the Gospel and having distraction during our Gospel preaching. We will take it slow with these stubborn Jews, but for you who are Gentiles, who are accepting our Gospel message - come meet with us tomorrow on week-day-1 for our Lord's day celebration. We will discuss this message in more peaceful meeting.".

Is that what Paul says in Acts 13??

OR does he say "lets all meet again NEXT Sabbath"??

If indeed he is still focused on a "next Sabbath" venue for preaching the Gospel and not using this perfect opportunity to get the "believers" to show up on the next day - Sunday then Acts 21 makes even more sense.

And what happens that "next Sabbath" according to Acts 13? Practically the entire city of gentiles shows up at the Sabbath service!

In fact in Acts 15 when the dispute arises what is the reason that James gives for not being too concerned about the OT scriptures being lost sight of by new converts?

13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.’

18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”


James argues that the Christians will be hearing Moses preached every Sabbath and that they need not be required to become Jews. In Acts 13 even non-Christian gentile "believers" in God - were "Hearing Moses preached in the synagogues every Sabbath".

In such a "context" you CAN have the Acts 21 debate just as it reads.


in Christ,


Bob

 

You have it wrong.
You abuse the context by ignoring essential parts of it. In Acts 20 Luke is simply giving a timeline. For example in verse one:

Acts 20:1 And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia.
--He is traveling. The reason? There was a great uproar in Ephesus and the Holy Spirit was leading them elsewhere:

Acts 19:40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
--Therefore they departed to go into Macedonia. This has nothing to do with the days of unleavened bread.

He came to Greece and there stayed three months (verses 2 and 3).
The names of those who accompanied him are given in verses 4 and 5.

After 3 months it was time to go on:
Acts 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
--It was simply coincidental that this happened to be the days of unleavened bread. Luke uses this term as an historical time line for his readers, to tell them what time of year it is. He is an historian.
Philippi is in Greece; they sail at this time to Troas. It took them five days. Now they stay in Troas for seven days. The time of the year is the Days of Unleavened Bread. Those are the facts that Luke give. This is a history book.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
--This is when they worshiped--upon the first day of the week. This was not the Sabbath, but Sunday. They had broken free from keeping the law. There was no sabbath to keep any longer. They met on the first day of the week, Sunday. Read and learn.

 

Acts 20 -- Paul continues to celebrate the feast of unleavened bread.

Ephesus (Acts 20:1), Greece (Acts 20:2) stays 3 months.... in Philipi. (eastern Macedonia) Paul and his company wait for feast of unleavened bread, while the GENTILE Christians sail on ahead NOT waiting for the feast of unleavened bread and so the Gentile group WAITS for Paul's group at Troas... then all of them meet up at Troas.


Acts 20

1 After the uproar had ceased (in Ephesus) , Paul called the disciples to himself, embraced them, and departed to go to Macedonia. 2 Now when he had gone over that region and encouraged them with many words, he came to Greece 3 and stayed three months. And when the Jews plotted against him as he was about to sail to Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 And Sopater of Berea accompanied him to Asia—also Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. 5 These men, going ahead, waited for us at Troas.

6 But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days.

 

In the first part of Acts 21 it is not a problem at all with the unchristian jews or the charge that Paul had taken gentiles into the temple. In the first part of Acts 21 the issue is with Christian Jews who have heard accusations against Paul that Paul was tossing out the law of Moses and instructing fellow Jews to do the same who had accepted Christ.

The perfect way to refute such a charge was to publicly engage in a ceremonial vow according to the Law of Moses - and pay for others to join you - showing that you not only still keep the ceremonial law - but that you also encourage other fellow Jews to do the same. I think we both see this in Acts 21.

The proof that the ceremonial law ended could NOT be found in following the ceremonial law and paying for others to do the same - or else you and I would be doing that right now.

I think you and I agree on that point so I am not sure what you are saying in the statement above.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The key to Acts 21 is that there had to be such an unquestioned acceptance of the OT scripture - as valid in the NT that not only is the Moral Law of God quoted from (as in the case of Eph 6 quoting the Ex 20:12 commandment verbatim) but even the ceremonial laws (that we all agree are ended) were open for observance by those who chose to do so.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Notice how the NT church appeals to the OT text as if the OT text is valid for doctrine and practice.

13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 ‘After these things I will return,
And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
18 Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.
19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,


Acts 23:5
And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written[FONT=&quot], ' YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'"


[/FONT]