quote:

---

Ooookeeey, obviously not much that we disagree on here ...

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Then how do you explain the fact that John the Baptist told the repentant soldiers to be satisfied with their wages? If one can be a soldier, doesn't that suggest they can be in war? Can a Christian authority not have a criminal hanged?

Albert: The answer is straightforward. As Mt. 11:11 clearly teaches, John the Baptist was an Old Covenant prophet. He was the last of the Old Covenant prophets. So everything that he preached pertains to the old era, not to the new. No, I don't think a Christian can be in government where that involves using the coercive powers of the state. They certainly shouldn't be in the armed forces in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: There can never be "lots of love," geopolitically speaking, for enemies. Just as there can never be "lots of love" for criminals - we punish them, and rightly so. True, Paul says Christians can't take one another to law, but he DOESN'T say we can't take unbelievers to law to get justice. That's the whole point of Romans 13 - WE don't have the right to avenge ourselves, but the "authorities" DO. And it is their DUTY to do so. So if a Christian is such an "authority" it is also his/her duty to do so.

Albert: In fact, Jesus said plainly "love your enemies". There is no excuse for not loving, whether it be geopolitical or anything else. Jesus didn't qualify his remarks.

---

quote:

---

As for your excuse that the Psalms I quoted were written by David and he was a king (which I don't find satisfactory), what about II Chronicles 19:2, which clearly forbids Old Covenant believers to love the wicked?

---

quote:

---

What about the fact, which you haven't answered, that love is clearly limited only to fellow Israelites in Lev. 19:18?

---

quote:

---

As for Romans 13, you're missing the point. The authorities are ordained by God to punish wrongdoers, but that doesn't make what they do morally right in itself. That's a very important point.

---

quote:

---

The Babylonians were ordained by God to destroy Israel and take them captive as punishment for their sins - the OT is very clear on that. But yet, the OT also declares that the Babylonians will be punished for the fact that they destroyed Israel, even though what they did was ordained by God as punishment for Israel. So the fact that someone is ordained to punish someone else, doesn't prove that that is right.

---

quote:

---

On your view, Paul contradicts himself, because if he thinks Christians can participate in the state punishment of wrongdoers, then he is saying one moment that Christians can take vengeance, and the next minute that they can't. When we become a Christian we GIVE UP our citizenship in any nation of this world. That is why we are called foreigners and ambassadors. Jesus fled when the people tried to make him king. He declared, "my kingdom is not of this world" (Jn. 18:36).

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Until you have anulled my arguments above, it still seems perfectly relevant.

Albert: Consider it anulled

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: That leads to a contradiction - consider the passage that way: 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until "hell freezes over" not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. The passage, spoken in that way, is saying the law WILL pass away and WON'T pass away. Moreover, the time qualifier "until heaven and earth pass away" is a REAL time qualifier, because the Revelation says that this heaven and earth WILL pass away.

Albert: No, it doesn't.

---

quote:

---

The New Testament plainly declares that the law is abolished (II Cor. 3:13, Eph. 2:15, Heb. 8:13), so you have a contradiction yourself.

---

quote:

---

But when 5:17 says "abolish", the verb parerchomai CAN also mean "neglect" or "break" (see UBS dictionary). So all Jesus is saying is that he hasn't come to neglect or break the law, but to fulfill it, and in so fulfilling it, it is completed and no longer in effect.

---

quote:

---

As for 5:18, the point is not whether heaven and earth will pass away. The first phrase emphasizes the indisolubility of the law UNTIL ALL IS FULFILLED. He is not saying that heaven and earth passing away and all being fulfilled happen at the same time. He first emphasizes the inviolability of the law, that it will stand, but then adds the temporal qualifier: "until all is fulfilled".

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Matthew 24 says otherwise. There may have been AN application of it "at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes," but Matt. 24 proves it was not FULFILLED yet.

Albert: No, I disagree with you about the nature of OT fulfillment. The prophecy in Daniel clearly was fulfilled, in detail, in all its aspects, by Antiochus Epiphanes. But Jesus takes that fulfilled prophecy and finds a future application for it.

---

quote:

---

This is the common NT approach to OT prophecy. Consider, for example, Jer. 31:15. In context this is clearly referring to the Babylonian captivity, and was fulfilled at that time. Just read the verse in context and I think you'll have to agree. But the writer of Matthew found a future application of the prophecy in Herod's slaughter of the infants (Mt. 2:18). These future applications, however, are not the straightforward intended meaning of the prophecy.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Since Christ uses the phrase "law and the prophets," it seems very counter-intuitive to suppose he was not talking about THE law of the Hebrew scriptures.

Albert: The phrase "the law and the prophets" does not occur in verse 19 and is not at issue. It is the phrase "these commandments", which are clearly related to "the kingdom of heaven", which is at issue. You can't do better on this then to read Robert Banks very lengthy treatment of the Greek of verse 19. The argument is that "these commandments" refer to Jesus' own teaching, not to the Mosaic Law.

---

quote:

---

Besides contextual considerations, and Banks' analysis, if "these commandments" refer to the Mosaic Law, then Jesus would be saying that the entire Mosaic Law is binding on Christians in the New Covenant (to which the phrase "the kingdom of God" always refers). That would contradict numerous other passages.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: The passage is about the fact that John the Baptist WAS a prophet and the greatest of those born of women. I don't see how that's "an innane historical observation." What words in the text indicate to you that Christ is talking about the applicability of the Mosaic Law?

Albert: Here is the NRSV translation of Lk. 16:16a: "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came". That is a very good translation. The meaning of the verse is that the law and the prophets (clearly meaning the OT prophets) were only in force until John.

---

quote:

---

Our reply is unanimously as follows: Christ teaches and commands us to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart and so shall we find rest to our souls. Also Christ says to the heathenish woman who was taken in adultery, not that one should stone her according to the Law of His Father (and yet He says, As the Father has commanded me, thus I do), but in mercy and forgiveness and warning, to sin no more. Such (an attitude) we also ought to take completely according to the rule of the ban.

---

quote:

---

Now since Christ is as it is written of Him, His members must also be the same, that His body may remain complete and united to its own advancement and upbuilding

---

quote:

---

Reading Romans end to end, and the same for Galatians is a good idea.

---

quote:

---

Galatians: A Commentary
Paul Nadim Tarazi

Paul's letter to the Galatians has been at the center of doctrinal controversies from the day it was written, and this is reflected in a surfeit of commentaries on the epistle. What set this new one by Tarazi apart from the crowd is its focus on the first-century controversy addressed by the epistle rather than on the modern controversies that have swirled around it ever since Luther made his interpretation of it the center of the Protestant Reformation.

As a result, this commentary defies classification in terms of which church's perspective it adopts. It may be considered Eastern Orthodox only in the sense that it was written by an Orthodox scholar, not in the sense that it was written to support a predetermined "Orthodox viewpoint." In his expositions of the text, explains carefully what the Apostle Paul meant and the historical circumstances prompting him to write what he did, and presents evidence intended to allow readers to judge for themselves as to the validity of the author's conclusions.

Many of those conclusions are quite different from what one will find in the mass of other commentaries available, whether they be on any number of lesser issues or more important ones such as the relationship between "faith" and "works" in 2:16; whether Paul's scriptural interpretation was artificial and forced in 3:16; whether 3:28 implies the difference between Jew and Greek; and whether Paul used allegory or typology to interpret scripture in 4:22-31.

Anyone interested in theology, church history, or New Testament exegesis will find this commentary an incomparable study resource, one that opens up perspectives that cannot be found in other such resources.

The Rev. Dr. Paul Nadim Tarazi is Professor of Old Testament at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. Other books by the same author published by SVS Press include I Thessalonians, and The Old Testament: An Introduction, Volume I (Historical Traditions), Volume II (Prophetic Traditions), and Volume III (Psalms and Wisdom), a three-volume series on the Old Testament.

ISBN 0-88141-083-7
6 x 9
368 pp
Price: US $18.95

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

Let me recommend a wonderful commentary:



secure.svspress.com/product_info.php?products_id=74&osCsid=2120cdd0a475b4b31f31683eaf578e07

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: First, why would John not warn them that his instructions had a time limit of just a few months? Second, why isn't Christ an old covenant prophet? The Spirit had not been poured out when he was prophecying.

Albert: My answer to your first question is, why would he? It wasn't his job. He was the last of the Old Covenant prophets, preparing the way for the New Covenant kingdom of God preached by Jesus. His job was to call the nation to Old Covenant fidelity in preparation for Jesus. That's what he did.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Christ didn't qualify that statement either - do you recommend that any one who lusts after a married person pluck their eye out? Or would you qualify it?

Albert: No, I wouldn't qualify it, and it shouldn't be qualified. I'd just treat it as a metaphor, which it is. But qualifying something means saying "except under circumstances X". If Jesus had qualified this, he would have said something like "pluck out your eye, except if your eye causes you to sin in a trivial way, in which case don't worry". It is a risky business to add qualifications to what the Lord has said where he has not said so.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: What evil had Jehoshaphat done that verse 2 is alluding to? It doesn't sound like a verse advocating hating the wicked in an absolute sense to me.

Albert: The problem is your translation. The Hebrew does not say "is it right to help the wicked", but rather, "is it right to LOVE the wicked". It is the Qal imperfect of the verb 'ahav, which means to love. It is used standardly in that way all the time. I suspect the translators have tried to sanitize the text by translating as "help".

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: The fact that Lev. refers to Israelites doesn't prove that they were to hate ALL non-Israelites.

Albert: But the passages in the Psalms, I Chronicles and so forth prove that they were to do so.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: They (the authorities) are said to bear the sword of GOD's vengeance. Is GOD's vengeance morally right?? I am of the opinion that it is.

Albert: You're entitled to any opinion you like, but unless you can back it up by scripture, I'm not impressed. Jesus specifically forbids vengeance, Paul specifically forbids vengeance, elsewhere the NT specifically forbids vengeance, always without qualification. I take that as overwhelming evidence that taking vengeance is wrong in the New Covenant.

Jefscott: Your right, unless Romans is stating an exception to the rule. The rule is: "Vengeance is Mine saith the Lord." But God GRANTS HIS OWN avenging right to the state. That's why it is not a usurpation for the state to exercise it. It was granted after the Flood.

Albert: This is just a way of evading the text. The text does not state any exception to the not avenging rule. But because you suppose that Christians can participate in the state and take vengeance, you have to make that an exception. My reading, however, is straightforward and has no problems. The state is ordained to take vengeance *outside of the perfection of Christ*. You need to understand that when we become Christians we resign our citizenship in the state. Christians are there own, unique nation (I Peter 2:9). Can't you see that this implies that we are not to work for earthly governments? Can a person serve two masters?

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Paul used his Roman citizenship for his own protection - was that wrong??

Albert: We don't know whether it was right or wrong, because the text doesn't tell us. One of the flaws with your position, is that you assume that just because the apostles did X, that X was right. But I don't think we can assume X was right UNLESS THE TEXT EXPLICITLY TELLS US SO. The gospel records how Peter denied Christ. Was that a good thing? Paul and Barnabas had a fight. Was that a good thing? Who was in the wrong? The text doesn't say, so we're left to speculate. To answer such speculations, we must adhere to the clear teaching of scripture where it does say. We should never overthrow the clear teaching of scripture based on what the apostles did unless we know for a fact that what the apostles did was right.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Christ's kingdom is not "out of" this world, it is "out of" heaven from his Father's authority. I don't see what that proves about the subject at hand.

Albert: Jesus' kingdom is present in this world only in the person of believers, and it is not an earthly kingdom. Jesus plainly said, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." Can you see the implications of this? Because the kingdom is not from this world, we as disciples are not to fight. That precludes participation in the military.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: II Cor. 3:13 says "being annulled" not "already annulled".

Albert: The verb katargeo is the present passive *participle*. If it were the present indicative, your case would be stronger. But in any case the context in which the present participle is used is of the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai, that is when the law is said to be "being annulled". So the verse is saying that the process of fading away was already active then. It had not faded away then, but the process had begun. Here is the NASB translation, which makes that clear: "and [are] not as Moses, [who] used to put a veil over his face that the sons of Israel might not look intently at the end of what was fading away". The present participle is used to indicate that it was presently fading away AT THE TIME POINT OF REFERENCE.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I agree that Ephesians teaches that the commandments are "annulled" for members of the Body of Christ today, but I am an Acts 28 dispensationalist, so that passage doesn't contradict my view.

Albert: But the Bible makes clear that in Christ there is no distinction between Jew or Greek. By "Acts 28 dispensationalist", I assume you mean an ultradispensationalist along the lines of E.W. Bullinger. That's a completely untenable position in my view, but I'll make some quick criticisms. If you're not an ultradispensationalist, then I apologise for misunderstanding you.

---

quote:

---

Criticism 1: The kingdom of God is one kingdom, the kingdom of the New Covenant, and belongs to the church. The key passage here is Matthew 21. Jesus curses the fig tree, which represents Israel, and says that fruit will never again come from it. Then he tells the parable of the wicked tenants. Then he says "Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom". Now note that he says that the kingdom of God will be taken from Israel and given to a nation (singular) which produces its fruits. What nation is that? Answer: I Peter 2:9, the church. There is no other possibility. So the church has inherited the kingdom of God, the very kingdom that Jesus preached. This is made plain elsewhere, such as II Thess. 1:5.

---

quote:

---

Criticism 2: There is only one gospel, it is the same gospel preached by Jesus that was preached by the apostles and Paul to the gentiles. Note Hebrews 2:2-3 "For if the message declared through angels was valid, and every transgression or disobedience received a just penalty, how can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? It was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him". Note that this says that the message in question was first declared through Jesus, and was attested to these later Christians through the apostles, the VERY SAME MESSAGE. Note also the distinction is between the Old Covenant message (the "message declared through angels"), and the New Covenant message, which was FIRST DECLARED BY JESUS.

---

quote:

---

Criticism 3: Romans 16:26 plainly states that the gospel is made known to the gentiles at the time it is writing, but it is universally acknowledged that the book of Romans was written well before Acts 28.

---

quote:

---

Criticism 4: Romans 2:29 teaches that anyone was has received the inner circumcision of the heart is a Jew, and the previous verse teaches that external circumcision does not make one a Jew. Verse 26 makes plain that gentiles who obey God have received the circumcision of the heart, and so in context verse 29 clearly asserts that Christian believers are, in the true sense, Jews and a part of Israel. The basic flaw of dispensationalism in all its varieties is that, on the pretext of "literal interpretation", it insists that "Israel" must always mean the earthly Jews. But imagine if we adopted the same "literal" procedure for other words in the New Testament. For instance, we could insist that the word "death" must ALWAYS mean physical death, never spiritual death. Then we would have to say that "You were dead through the trespasses and sins" means that these people were actually formerly physically dead and had been resurrected. That, obviously, is absurd. Everyone accepts that "death" can have both a physical and a spiritual meaning in the New Testament. So it is with the word "Israel". There is an earthly, physical Israel, and there is a spiritual Israel, which consists of believers.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: It could, indeed, if the following verses did not contradict that view. But they seem to do just that, to me.

Albert: But, as I've shown, they don't.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: The verse reads "UNTIL heaven and earth pass away," and is, therefore, a time qualifier just like the "until all is fulfilled" phrase.

Albert: Even if it was intended as a time qualifier, and it isn't, it's just an emphasis of unbreakability, you still haven't proved that the earlier and latter time qualifiers are the same. In other words, even on your interpretation of "until heaven and earth pass away", we are left with the conclusion that the law could pass away if either one of two possible time qualifiers was satisfied (a) heaven and earth passing away or (b) all being fulfilled. Since (b) has been satisfied, it doesn't matter about (a).

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Matt. 2:17 says "THEN was FULFILLED that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet,.." Thus, it clearly was NOT fulfilled in the Babylonian captivity. That was just one application of the prophecy.

Albert: If it was not fulfilled in the Babylonian captivity, then Jeremiah is shown to be in error, because it is in the plainest possible words that he was prophecying the Babylonian captivity. You are just imposing your own assumption, and it is just an assumption, that no fulfilled prophecy can ever be re-fulfilled or have additional application. But it obviously can, unless we make Jeremiah out to be wrong. So it is with the abomination of desolation.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: But verse 19 uses the word "THEREFORE" before saying "THESE commandments," clearly referring BACK to verse 18.

Albert: Yes, but the debate is whether the word "therefore" is in reference to 18b or to 18d ("until all is accomplished"). In other words, in verse 18 he was emphasizing that the law was very important in the old era, but in verse 19 he goes on to say that now there is an even greater and new ethic which is even more important, so that if a person broke the law they were very bad, but if a person breaks the new law they are even more guilty. This explains why he refers to a righteousness that EXCEEDS that of the scribes and Pharisees in verse 20. He is talking about his own teaching, not the law. The scribes and Pharisees followed the law exactingly. But in the Sermon on the Mount he is presenting a new ethic, a righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of the law. Let me quote Banks:

"Most suitable is its interpretation as a demonstrative with adjectival character, refering not in a general way to the commandments of which v. 18b metaphorically speaks, but rather to those associated with v.18d, i.e., in Christ's own teaching. In view of other sayings in the gospel that stem from Matthew's tradition, or are typical of Matthaean understanding, this suggestion has considerable force". (there is about four pages on these two verses in Banks).

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Matt. 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: FOR THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS.

Albert: I would understand that to mean that this is THE FULFILLMENT of the law and the prophets. It is what the law and the prophets pointed to, not what they taught ethically. It is the Christological centre of the law and the prophets. It IS the law and the prophets, because the centre of the law and the prophets is NOT their ethical teaching, but the way that they prefigure Christ, whose character is summed up in the ethical teachings he gives.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: It was binding on all Jews in covenant with God. The New Covenant assured that THE LAW would be written in their hearts and minds - NOT that the Law would be annulled.

Albert: If you're saying that the Law is still valid for Jews, you're running totally against New Testament teaching. Paul is just as concerned about Jewish believers being under the law as he is about gentiles. The law was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ; but having come to Christ they no longer need the schoolmaster. Paul says that "we" are no longer subject to the law (e.g. Gal. 3:24), and he was a Jew.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: But I know of not ONE verse written during the Acts period that clearly says that believing Jews in covenant with God were free to disregard the Mosaic Law.

Albert: Galations was written during the Acts period, and it is full of such verses, as I've noted above. Romans was written during the Acts period, and it also teaches this. I'd say there would be dozens of such verses. And what about Peter's "rise Peter, kill and eat" vision in Acts?

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I see no greek words in Lk. 16:16 (Textus Receptus) for your phrase "were in effect." Moreover, Luke 16:17 says, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail," which substantiates my view of Matthew 5.

Albert: Note that verse 16 continues "since then the kingdom of God is proclaimed". There is a contrast between the era of the law and the prophets, which has come to an end, and the era SINCE THEN, when the kingdom of God, the New Covenant, is proclaimed and in effect. As for verse 17, all this states is that the law and the prophets will not fail or fall (pipto). That means they will all be fulfilled. It doesn't mean that they continue in effect. "Failing" here means to not be fulfilled. So it doesn't substantiate your view at all. Luke 24:44 clearly teaches that EVERYTHING written about Christ in the Old Testament was fulfilled in his death and resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Christ was not annulling the Law of stoning adulterers - he was reaffirming it's true intent. The fact that her accusers brought NOT the man proved they were NOT killing her for the right reason.

Albert: Again, you're evading the text. The law states that anyone in her position HAD to be stoned to death, and it forbade any show of mercy - lo' tachos, "show no pity". Saying that they were not killing her "for the right reason" doesn't explain why Jesus couldn't have killed her - he certainly did not have bad motives. The law does not require perfection on the part of those who participate in community executions. Jesus was introducing a new teaching, not upholding the old.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by albert

Albert: John probably didn't even know about the ethic of the New Covenant. That was first introduced by Jesus. How would John know that in a few months they would be violating God's law? In any case, "a few months" is strained. I think there was a period of transition, not an overnight change. Suppose a righteous Jew living in Egypt who was right with God continued to keep the law after Jesus' death and resurrection. Would he suddenly overnight be not right with God because of the institution of the New Covenant? No. There was a period of grace during which the gospel spread. However, once he heard the message of Jesus, he would then be under obligation to come under the New Covenant.

---

quote:

---

Also, is it wise to say that the New Covenant in Christ's body and blood is an "ethic?" That sounds like it is made into a second old covenant -- a new law. It is a relationship, not an ethic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jefscott

POW,

quote:

---

Also, is it wise to say that the New Covenant in Christ's body and blood is an "ethic?" That sounds like it is made into a second old covenant -- a new law. It is a relationship, not an ethic.

---

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding Albert, he is saying that the New Covenant has a different ethic than the Old.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jefscott

POW,

quote:

---

Also, is it wise to say that the New Covenant in Christ's body and blood is an "ethic?" That sounds like it is made into a second old covenant -- a new law. It is a relationship, not an ethic.

---

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding Albert, he is saying that the New Covenant has a different ethic than the Old.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: If it's so horrible to be a soldier under your view, wouldn't it have been wise for John to let them know that in a mere few months they would be living in direct violation to the NEW will of God? Was John expecting them to providentially be directed to the NEW teaching?

Albert: John probably didn't even know about the ethic of the New Covenant. That was first introduced by Jesus. How would John know that in a few months they would be violating God's law? In any case, "a few months" is strained. I think there was a period of transition, not an overnight change. Suppose a righteous Jew living in Egypt who was right with God continued to keep the law after Jesus' death and resurrection. Would he suddenly overnight be not right with God because of the institution of the New Covenant? No. There was a period of grace during which the gospel spread. However, once he heard the message of Jesus, he would then be under obligation to come under the New Covenant.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I believe passages can have common-sensical qualifications, but fair enough. How would you apply the metaphor in REAL life?

Albert: If something causes you to sin, get rid of it. Seems simple enough to me. Is your car causing you to sin by consuming your time and money or causing you to worship it? Then get rid of your car. And so forth.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Since I don't believe it is wrong for a Christian to be a police and kill in the line of duty, your argument doesn't really move me yet. The passage in question is addressing some SPECIFIC thing or thing(s) that Jehoshaphat had done. Until you tell me what that is, I don't know that I would think any different than the prophet that rebuked him.

Albert: The prophet's rebuke to Jehoshaphat was that he "loved the wicked". It was not qualified; he was not condemned for loving the wicked under some particular special set of circumstances. The prophet was appealing to a general principle under the Old Covenant that one ought not to love the wicked. It was because he loved the wicked that wrath went against him from God. This fits perfectly with the repeated statements in the Psalms which I quoted previously where the Psalmist declares that he hates idolaters, wicked people, and so forth.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: You must remember, I don't believe it's wrong to kill under ALL circumstances.

Albert: And I disagree. But let me ask you this question. Do you believe that it is loving to kill someone? Are you loving the person you kill?

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution (greek=avenger) on the wrongdoer. 13:5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. 13:6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing.

Albert: All this says is that government is ordained and appointed by God to punish wrongdoers.

---

quote:

---

Of course we should be subject to it, wherever that does not violate God's law. But saying that it is ordained and appointed by God does not prove that its actions are good or included in Christ, or that a Christian should participate in them.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I asked a question and you say you don't know the answer. That implies he MAY, as far as you know, have been right, doesn't it?

Albert: It also means that he may not. As a matter of fact, I believe he was wrong in this instance. But since you can't prove that he was right, and since your argument depends on proving he was right, the passage is not relevant to the debate.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: The only implication I see is that the disciples were not to take up arms to defend Christ. To read more into it seems unjustified.

Albert: Absolutely not. Jesus is stating a general principle that forbids the use of arms on his behalf by his followers. It matters not what the context. He did not say "because my kingdom is not of this world, in this particular instance my disciples will not fight". I think what he says is clear enough. It has nothing to do with "seizing the kingdom". There was no issue of seizing the kingdom; it was just an issue of rescuing Christ from execution.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: When a participle is preceded by an article, is that always the case?

Albert: Let me quote from Wenham, "The elements of New Testament Greek", under the heading "the meaning of the tense in participles", pp. 152. "Generally speaking, the Present Participle denotes action taking place at the same time as the action of the main verb, and the Aorist Participle denotes action which took place before the action of the main verb". In other words, the time of action for a Present Participle is not necessarily the present, but is determined by the main verb. In the case of the participles in verse 11, the main verb is dedoxastai in verse 10, which is perfect, denoting a past action that has continuing effect in the present. That is why all standard translations go something like "that which was done away" indicating that the doing away is completed in the past. In verse 13 the main verb is etithei, which is imperfect, and therefore the participle refers to past action. So your interpretation of the law presently fading away is simply wrong.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Another possibility: Ex. 32:9 And the Lord said unto Moses, "I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people: 10 Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume the them: and I will make of thee a GREAT NATION." The Jews would have probably understood him, thus.

Albert: When Jesus said that it will be taken from "you" and given to "a nation", obviously the "you" is the nation of Israel. It was Israel to whom the kingdom of God was offered and by right belonged. To interpret "a nation" as being in any sense related to the earthly Jewish people is preposterous.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: The fact that the Thessalonians will inherit the kingdom doesn't mean that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob won't.

Albert: Correct. But the reason that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will inherit it is not because they were Jews in the earthly sense. They will inherit it only because they were believers, and therefore belonged to spiritual Israel. Paul makes this expressly clear in Romans: "For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart--it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God". Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, unlike most earthly Jews, had received this inner circumcision of the heart. They, along with gentiles who receive the same inner circumcision, are the true Israel.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: You'll have to be more specific; I'm not sure what idea you're arguing against here.

Albert: Dispensationalist and ultradispensationalists usually argue that there were two gospels; a gospel that Jesus proclaimed to Israel (and, on the ultradispensationalist view, that Peter preached to the Jews) and a gospel for the gentiles proclaimed by Paul (on the ultradispensationalist view, after Acts 28, or earlier in more moderate forms of ultradispensationalism). That's what I was arguing against. There is only one gospel.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I agree, but don't understand your point.

Albert: I'm suprised that you're not aware of this problem. This is a well-known and standard argument against Acts 28 ultradispensationalism. According to Acts 28 ultradispensationalism, it was only at this point (Acts 28) when Paul, because of his rejection by the Jews, began to preach the mystery to the Gentiles. But Romans 16 clearly states that he was preaching the mystery to the Gentiles long before this. Acts 28 ultradispensationalists usually try to argue, believe it or not, that these last verses of Romans were added to the letter much later by Paul when he was in Rome. As if he sent the letter, and then much later got a hold of it and decided to add a few verses at the end! That's what Bullinger argued. In my opinion, if you have to resort to that kind of explanation, your theory is bankrupt.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I would say there is a physical Israel and an elect Israel: the same idea in Romans 9. The elect Israel is a subset of the physical. That is Paul's argument in Rom. 9-11 and, I believe, in Romans 2.

Albert: This overthrows the whole scheme. If there is a spiritual Israel, which is not identical to physical Israel but a subset of it, then clearly the word "Israel" does not just mean the Jewish people in a literal sense. And if we accept that it is used non-literally, why should "literal interpretation" force us to limit it only to Jewish believers?

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: If it's NOT a time qualifier, I have no reason to assume the other is. The greek word is the same for "until." And I do not believe that all prophecies have come to pass (the 2nd time qualifier). Had Joel's prophecy quoted by Peter in Acts 2 been fulfilled already? Do you deny that there are any OT prophecies about Christ's second coming?

Albert: I think the time qualifier point has been made, and we're obviously not going to reach agreement. I think my view is quite obvious; but you must think yours is, so we have to agree to disagree.

---

quote:

---

But in Luke 24:44 Jesus plainly says, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you--that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled." So obviously everything written about Christ was fulfilled, end of story.

---

quote:

---

Peter's application of Joel was another instance of re-application of prophecy. Let me quote from La Sor et al., "Old Testament Survey". "Second, the descriptions of 2:4-11 are read figuratively in apocalyptic fashion which views the insects as unearthly creatures who will wreak havoc at the day of the Lord (cf. Rev. 9:3, 7-11). Regular use of the past tense, however, and the fact that narrator seems to have been an eyewitness (see Joel 1:13) suggests that Joel is not forecasting the future but depicting divine judgement that has already taken place". Joel is recording events dealing with the exile and restoration of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity. But Peter re-applies already fulfilled prophecy to a new circumstance. It is only your un-Biblical resistance against multiple application of prophecy that leads you to the problem, a problem which makes most of the Old Testament prophets out to be just wrong when read in their own context in the plain, literal sense.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I quoted a verse, Albert. How is that mere assumption? To say something is re-fulfilled imposes ONE meaning of the word "fulfill." It seems to me that the more natural meaning is that a verse is not FILLED FULL until ALL applications of it have occurred. And again, the greek article in the verse about the abomination of desolation in Matthew seems clear to me.

Albert: The verse doesn't say that the prophecy wasn't already fulfilled. That was your assumption. In fact, it had already been fulfilled in the plain sense, and to deny this makes Jeremiah a false prophet. But the writer of Matthew sees a new application and a new fulfillment. The same is true of the abomination of desolation.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I'm not following you. Are you saying the word ALL in "until ALL is accomplished" is referring to NEW commandments? That it has nothing to do with fulfillment of prophecy? And are you saying that Christ simultaneously fulfilled a) a Law that required hating some AND b) a NEW Law that required loving ALL without qualification?

Albert: No, the point is that the "all being fulfilled" is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets which occurred in Christ and in his person and teaching and death and resurrection. "Fulfilling the law" does not mean "following the law". It means being the fulfillment of the typology. For instance, Christ fulfilled the law regarding the passover, not by participating in the passover, but by going to the cross and dying which is what the real meaning of the passover always really was, what the passover always pointed to, and what the passover had no meaning without.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Christ did NOT say the scribes and pharisees kept the Law exactly.

Albert: But they were the ones who were generally known to diligently adhere to the Mosaic Law.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I don't see how that is the more natural reading or even a necessary reading. Could you elaborate.

Albert: I don't think it is a necessary reading; like most passages of scripture, it can be read different ways. I certainly think it is a natural reading that fits the fulfillment motif of the gospels. I don't have to claim that it's a necessary reading for my position to be upheld.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I believe that "under the Law" in Galatians means obligated to keep it for justification. In that sense, we are under NO Law, but grace.

Albert: Plainly contrary to the text. Otherwise Paul would not have been able to condemn Peter; all Peter did, according to the text, was to adhere to the Law. But Paul says, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?".

---

quote:

---

Paul says he has "died to the law", and that if he builds again what is destroyed (the law), he makes himself a transgressor. In 3:2-3 he says "The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?". Obviously he is saying that having started without the law, they should not now come under the law, and there he is not specifically addressing either Jewish or gentile believers.

---

quote:

---

Paul says "For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse"; this is true in whatever sense they rely on the works of the law, not just for salvation, but also for sanctification.

---

quote:

---

Paul sees the two as connected; we are saved by the spirit and sanctified by the spirit. He says "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for "The one who is righteous will live by faith." But the law does not rest on faith;". Note that he says that the one who is righteous will live by faith, and then says that the law is not of faith. Obviously, then we cannot live by the law. And so forth. In short, I think you have radically and fundamentally misunderstood Paul's message in Galations (and Romans). Paul says that in Christ the division between Jews and Gentiles, which was the Mosaic Law, has been abolished.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: The vision of Peter meant that Gentiles could be "CLEAN."

Albert: So let's get this straight. God told Peter in a vision to do something directly against his own law (kill and eat unclean animals), in order to tell him to go to the Gentiles. Nonsense. The meaning of the vision is dependent on the fact that the animals were not unclean and it was alright to eat them. If not, then the application that it was alright to visit Gentiles, doesn't follow. And we know that Jesus expressly declared all foods clean ("Thus he declared all foods clean" Mark 7:19; the Textus Receptus has a textual error there).

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I see no evidence in Acts thereafter that any believing Jew assumed they were free from the covenantal obligation to keep the Law to the best of their ability.

Albert: I've just presented evidence; there is stacks of evidence in the Pauline epistles.

---

quote:

---

And what does "to the best of their ability" mean? Sounds like an escape clause to me.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: The verse doesn't say "tittle" of the prophets, but the LAW. If it was prophecy that was being emphasized, wouldn't that word have been used?

Albert: I don't see how this point has any effect on my argument at all. The law prophesied of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Christ could have killed her, unless there was a legal prohibition of it. But Christ had the authority to forgive sins.

Albert: But the law quite plainly does not allow exceptions or the forgiving of sins. So whatever authority he had, he was going against the law if he did not "show no pity" and exact the full penalty.

---

quote:

---

If others were also sinful, he could have said, OK, we'll stone her, but go get the man and we'll stone him too. That was perfectly possible.

---

quote:

---

Galatians said Christ came under the Law. He had to keep it perfectly to ransom those that were under the Law. If keeping the Law meant hating people, He must have done just that.

---

quote:

---

Albert: The phrase "the law and the prophets" does not occur in verse 19 and is not at issue. It is the phrase "these commandments", which are clearly related to "the kingdom of heaven", which is at issue. You can't do better on this then to read Robert Banks very lengthy treatment of the Greek of verse 19. The argument is that "these commandments" refer to Jesus' own teaching, not to the Mosaic Law. Besides contextual considerations, and Banks' analysis, if "these commandments" refer to the Mosaic Law, then Jesus would be saying that the entire Mosaic Law is binding on Christians in the New Covenant (to which the phrase "the kingdom of God" always refers). That would contradict numerous other passages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by albert

Well, I suppose I'd better respond after having had an evening of fun ... my wife and I have the church video projector on loan while the Pastor is away, so we had some friends over and watched the old 1950's movie "The Blob" (starring Steve McQueen) and watched it projected onto a wall. It was *awesome* . Just like being at the drive-in. Anyway ...

John Earp: If true, then Jesus was incorrect when He said the Law and Prophets is summed up in "love God, love neighbor."

Albert: I've answered this objection previously.

John Earp: This is precisely the same ethic in both Old and New Covenants, and is in fact the unchanging moral law of God, which John Wesley and other Arminian theologians point out.

Albert: So it is an unchanging moral law that one ought not to wear a garment made of two different kinds of thread? The Mosaic Law is an indivisible whole and there is no Biblical basis for splitting it into parts.

---

quote:

---

No, it is an unchanging moral law that people should love God and love their neighbor as themself. The Mosaic Law was a temporary addendum to the promise (see Galatians 3), which was meant only for the Jewish people. Wesley and many others have made this observation over the centuries. It harmonizes the Old and New Covenants perfectly. "Love God and love thy neighbor" is expressly stated as the HEART of God's moral law (expectations of how moral agents should conduct themselves) by Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and nearly every other NT writer.

---

quote:

---

In keeping with one of the emphases of the John Bunyan Conference, we are going to look at this subject as it relates to the law. Really, this is the specific area of concern handed to anyone studying the larger picture of the Divine schema -- it just works out that way in that it is such a pivotal matter from the point of view both of Scripture and of the competing systems of theology today. Your view of the law winds up shaping your entire hermeneutical grid.

So, what is the status of Mosaic law since the coming of Jesus Christ? In what way(s) did He affect it, if at all? Still more specifically, how did the revelation which Jesus brought relate to that of Moses? Does Moses' law remain the final court of appeal in questions of ethics? What bearing does it have on ethical and behavioral issues which face the new covenant believer?

Within this discussion Matthew 5:17-20 looms large. Indeed, out of this pivotal statement of Jesus the whole New Testament theology of law grows. In this passage Jesus specifically disclaims any conflict between Himself and Moses and enthusiastically affirms His harmonious relationship with the older revelation. But the exact nature of this relationship is what we must determine.

Covenant Theology is designed to show the unity in God's purpose in human redemption. It is called "covenant" theology not because of an emphasis on the Biblical/historical covenants as such but on certain "theological" covenants -- the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is essentially the promise made in Gen.3:15 of the coming deliverer, and all of history is a progressive unfolding of this covenant. With this emphasis on the unity of God's purpose there is a strong tendency in Covenant Theology to carry over the old order into the new: the church is the new Israel, the law of the old covenant is still binding in the new, and so on.

Dispensational Theology is designed to show the various differences in God's dealings with men. A "dispensation" has to do with the various administrations of Divine truth. With new revelation come new responsibilities and/or privileges. This change results in a new "economy" or dispensation. With this emphasis on the various changes in God's program, Dispensationalism labors to show the differences between the old and new economies or dispensations. For the Dispensationalist, law is a thing of the past and not relevant to the new covenant believer.

Between these two systems is what we call New Covenant Theology, and I think the distinctiveness of what we are attempting to show is made most clear in Mat.5:17-20. The passage bristles with difficulties and various theological intricacies, but if we can get a "handle" on it the larger picture takes clearer shape. We'll try to hit the more salient points, but the crux interpretum is v.17 -- "I came to fulfill" the law.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: It seems contrary to God's nature (IMHO) to have John give comfort to people being soldiers if He was to shortly thereafter proclaim the horror of it. But, hey, that's just me.

Albert: I don't find this even vaguely convincing.

---

quote:

---

Albert: Come on. You can't qualify things like that. He doesn't say "if the only way". He says if your eye offend you, get rid of it. That is an unqualified moral law. Same with turning the other cheek. The thing that really disturbs me about people who take your position is they are constantly finding ways to qualify what is very clear. There is nothing about "turn the other cheek", "do not resist an evildoer", "love your enemies", and so forth that is in the least bit ambiguous. Are you going to qualify "love your enemies" as "if the only way you can keep from rendering evil for evil is to love your enemies, then love your enemies"? You are making something very plain and simple into something much more complex and limited.

---

quote:

---

Albert: As I've said repeatedly, the Law does not give instructions for how to behave in the dispersion, only in the land. So it would be up to individual Israelites to figure out as best they could how to live in the dispersion.

---

quote:

---

Albert: The Babylonians were also ministers unto good, in the sense of being the instruments of God's righteous judgement. But that didn't make what they did in itself good.

---

quote:

---

The distinction is clear, and the passage doesn't say what you want it to say. And on the basis of this mis-reading, you're overthrowing the repeated, plain, crystal clear message of the New Testament not to take vengeance, ever.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: But when government bears the sword justly, they are doing GOOD, not EVIL.

Albert: No, they are doing evil, but God has ordained that evil to bring about good - his righteous judgement.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I understood you to say that we have NO legitimate, earthly citizenship. If what Paul did was legitimate, it PROVES that having a heavenly citizenship does not NEGATE our right to find refuge in our earthly citizenship under certain circumstances. Personally, I don't see that Paul was wrong.

Albert: Unless you can show from scripture that he was right, your personal opinion counts for nothing. Personally, I think that Paul was wrong. So what?

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Luke 22:35 Then Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out with no money bag, or traveler’s bag, or sandals, you didn’t lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing.” 22:36 He said to them, “But now, the one who has a money bag must take it, and likewise a traveler’s bag too. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 22:37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me is being fulfilled.” 22:38 So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Then he told them, “It is enough.”

Albert: This interprets itself. If Jesus was speaking literally about arming with weapons, then why when the disciples said "here are two swords", did he reply "it is enough"? Two swords are enough? For what? To protect a whole bunch of disciples and Jesus? Clearly, he is speaking non-literally, and his disciples have misunderstood him.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: The author you quoted said, "Generally speaking..." Does that mean no exceptions? I asked about participles used with the article functioning as a substantive(?). Can that be an exception? What about the verse in Hebrews 8? Is he referring back in time rather than forward in time? Is that the normal use of "near?"

Albert: The rule of tense applies however the participle is used, substantive or not.

---

quote:

---

The genitive article tou acts as a pronoun (referring to the law) and is literally translated as "of what", hence "tou katargoumenou" means "of what [was] being set aside". The verb "to be" is often omitted in Greek and needs to be supplied. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the rule about the tense of participles, as there are to nearly every rule of grammar. But the rule is still the general rule, and there's nothing in the Greek of II Cor. 3:13 to suggest the rule should be violated; in fact it is obvious reading it in context that the participle applies to the time of action at Mt. Sinai.

Jefscott: What about the verse in Hebrews 8? Is he referring back in time rather than forward in time? Is that the normal use of "near?"

Albert: The same situation applies in Hebrews 8:13. The verbs palaioumenon (being made obsolete) and geraskon (growing old) are present participles, the time of action is determined by the main verb which is pepalaioken immediately preceding the participles; pepalaioken is the perfect indicative, which indicates a past action which has continued effect in the present, and should be translated "has been made obsolete". So the becoming obsolete and the growing old and likewise past actions. As for being on the verge of disappearing, I would say that this is a prophetic indicator that the temple sacrifices, with which Hebrews is so concerned, are about to end with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD - in other words, what is already obsolete is now going to be made to disappear completely by God.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: The nation that God was going to destroy in Exodous was the nation of Israel (excepting Moses). The nation that God was going to raise up through Moses would have been the nation of Israel, also. I don't see the problem.

Albert: Even if we accept that the new nation was Israel, and it is hard to see how that could be (for instance, eleven of the twelve tribes of Israel would be gone), you are still missing the point.

---

quote:

---

Jesus is stating that the kingdom of God would be taken from "you" and given to a different nation, not taken from some in the nation and given to others in the nation.

---

quote:

---

The word "ethnos" used here invariably refers to Gentile nations; in fact in the plural it is typically translated "Gentiles". You're again just trying to evade the plain meaning of the text.

---

quote:

---

The "you" is Israel; therefore the nation in question cannot be Israel.

---

quote:

---

That is key to Matthew's message; the rejection of Jesus by the Jews leads to the church inheriting the kingdom of God. That is why Matthew is the only gospel to use the word "church" in the universal sense

---

quote:

---

that is why Matthew seeks to emphasize Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion (27:25), with "the people as a whole" (pas ho laos) saying "his blood be on us and on our children".

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Your original point was that the Kingdom/New Covenant was for the Church. I believe it was for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. also. (Matt. 8:11, etc.)

Albert: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the Old Testament saints were included in the kingdom, but only when they died and went to heaven. They did not see the kingdom in their life on this earth. The gospels are clear that the Kingdom of God did not exist on earth prior to the coming of Jesus. The "church" is unique in that it is the Kingdom of God present on this earth.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I disagree with Bullinger. And I agree with you that such an explanation is a stretch.

Albert: Then you have to provide an alternative explanation for Romans 16:25-26, which clearly show that Paul preached the gospel and the mystery to the Gentiles long before Acts 28. That conclusively disproves "Acts 28 dispensationalism".

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: It shouldn't FORCE us to. But I don't see any reason to ADD new non-literal meanings when the existing one explains sufficiently the various passages.

Albert: You've already abandoned literal meaning when you start talking about an "Israel" which only includes the elect and doesn't include all Jews. You've tossed literal interpretation out the window. But we have to allow the Bible to define its own terms, and not impose our own meanings on the text.

---

quote:

---

The Bible clearly teaches that "Israel" in the true sense includes all believers including Gentiles. Your approach does not explain the text; it constantly has to evade the text.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: To me, that passage makes perfectly good sense by contrasting "ALL things" with their LIMITED understanding of what "things" were to be fulfilled. They knew NOTHING of those things, but knew much of the other messianic prophecies. I think Christ was saying, "Let me explain why my death, ressurection, etc. were necessary for ALL things to be fullfilled that were written about me - for if I had NOT died, ressurected, etc., ALL things would NOT have been fulfilled that were written about me." And again, Matthew 5 says "until ALL come to pass," not JUST prophecies about Christ. I don't know if Greg Boyd has enough disk space for you to try to prove that ALL things prophecied in the OT came to pass by 30 AD. I don't believe they had.

Albert: But it says all things (panta), not many things or a lot of things.

---

quote:

---

Christ saw the entire Old Testament as pointing to him and prefiguring him. When he said "all things are fulfilled", he saw them as fulfilled in him.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I am NOT resisting multiple applications of prophecy. I am disagreeing with your definition of "fulfill." I said in my last post that I think the most natural meaning is that a prophecy is completely fulfilled WHEN ALL of the MULTIPLE applications of the prophecy have COME TO PASS. Then and ONLY then is it FILLED FULL.

Albert: Prove that scripture is not fulfilled until multiple applications happen. Using the English word "fulfilled" to prove your point is futile; the New Testament was written in Greek. They were fulfilled when they happened in the sense that the prophets intended. But they can be re-applied and re-fulfilled, without that affecting the fact that they were fulfilled. Prove otherwise from the Bible and I'll believe you.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: I would not disagree that WHAT you're saying is true, but I don't see how Christ's audience could have gotten that from his comments in Matthew 5. According to my hermeneutic, the most natural meaning of words in their historical context is the most certain meaning of the text.

Albert: As I've shown, you don't apply this hermeneutic consistently at all. In numerous instances, you take very non-obvious meanings of the text. For example, when the text says "turn the other cheek", you change that to "if there's no other way to avoid rendering evil for evil then turn the other cheek". Is that "the most natural meaning of the words in their historical context"? No it ain't.

---

quote:

---

You constantly adopt non-obvious interpretations. And I think my reading is a very natural reading in context, because you're just focussing on verses 17-20 and ignoring the fact that following these verse Jesus overturns the teaching of the law explicitly in his antitheses. In light of the context, it is much more likely that he is referring to his own commandments.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: But a non-hypocritical, righteous Jew probably kept the Law more faithfully than the Pharisees.

Albert: But Jesus was speaking to people who associated strict Torah observence with the scribes and Pharisees. They did not realise that the scribes and Pharisees were hypocrites. Jesus' statement about the greater righteousness leads straight in to his antitheses when he lays out a far more demanding ethic than is in the law. In context, the meaning is quite clear.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Could you give me an overview of what you mean by "fulfillment motif" and which verses substantiate it.

Albert: The fact that Jesus and the gospel writers constantly refer to "fulfillment" of Old Testament passages in the life of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: What Peter was doing was implying, by his actions, that God had not actually CLEANSED the Gentiles by faith, as he had already conceded in Acts 10,11,&15 - thereby denying they could be justified apart from the Law. The reason why the Jews were forbidden to eat with Gentiles theretofore was because they WERE unclean - at least ceremonially.

Albert: Yes, but the law allows no provision of cleansing Gentiles by faith.

---

quote:

---

Obviously, by eating with a Gentile he was breaking the Mosaic Law.

---

quote:

---

God was declaring the foods in the vision clean because they were actually clean, overturning the food regulations of the Mosaic Law under which they would always be unclean.

---

quote:

---

Albert: Because the text says so. Paul frequently includes himself in his statements, saying "we",

---

quote:

---

and Paul was a Jew, so whatever he says applies to Jewish believers as well as Gentiles. He critiqued Peter in the letter, and Peter was a Jew.

---

quote:

---

Why would Paul not specifically say if the letter were only addressed to Gentiles "you Jewish believers better not read this letter because it's not for you". It was for all believers, quite obviously.

---

quote:

---

When Paul says "Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?", he is refuting the very suggestion that you are making. Having been justified by grace (started with the Spirit), they cannot then be sanctified by the law (ending with the flesh).

---

quote:

---

That's why he goes on to speak of the life in the Spirit. The whole thrust of Galations is that the Law was only a teacher to bring them to Christ. But having come to Christ by faith they have no more need of that teacher (3:25). There are numerous other passages; I think you've just missed the whole point of Galations.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: How do you know that it's not only justification that he's talking about?

Albert: Because he doesn't say "those who rely of the works of the law for justification are under a curse", but only "those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse". The logic of his argument is that if you go under the law at all, to try to obey it, then you come under its curse. That is true for justification and sanctification.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: That verse is quoted from the OT and yet they kept the Law. The Law was NEVER for justification - yet the OT saints were to keep it.

Albert: Because during the Old Testament period the animal sacrifices acted as a temporary protection against the curse of the law, by offering forgiveness contingent upon Christ's coming sacrifice. But after the once-for-all death of Christ, animal sacrifices no longer had any effect. Anyone who wants to keep the law now is obligated to keep the whole thing in total without making a single mistake.

---

quote:

---

Albert: Jesus declared that all animals were clean (Mk. 7:19), not just the ones on the sheet. Are you saying that Jewish believers shouldn't eat with a non-believing Gentile?

---

quote:

---

As I've pointed out above, even on your view the Law has been altered, because there were no provisions for Gentiles being clean in the Law.

---

quote:

---

Neither were there provisions for God making specific animals clean on a one-off basis.

---

quote:

---

How do I know the TR is in error? Because the vast majority of manuscripts, including the most early and reliable manuscripts, have an omega in katharizon instead of an omicron as in the TR. The omega reading is rated A by the UBS, which means they are very sure that it is correct. Furthermore, it is easy to see how the textual error crept in to the few later manuscripts that contain it. When read aloud, there was little pronounciation difference between omega and omicron. Someone, obviously just confused them. In addition, the TR reading just isn't grammatically correct, which is why it reads so awkwardly in the KJV.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: It's hard for me to believe His audience would have understood Him to mean that.

Albert: It's what Jesus meant that's important, not how his audience understood him. How did his audience understand him when he declared he would destroy this temple and rebuild it in three days?

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: What about God sparing David's life? His crime demanded capital punishment by the Law? God knew he was guilty, but exercised His divine perogative to withhold capital punishment? What about John's baptism unto the remission of sins? Was that provided for in the Law - forgiveness without sacrifice?

Albert: All sins could be remitted under the law, but that didn't mean that the legal punishment didn't have to be extracted.

---

quote:

---

The Pentateuch is plain in this regard - again you're abandoning the straightforward interpretation of the Law in favour of one that fits your theology.

---

quote:

---

David was a particular exception because he was King, and it was contrary to the Law for anyone to kill God's annointed. However, God extracted punishment by killing his first born son to Bathsheba, so it is not true to say that he got off without punishment.

---

quote:

---

Jefscott: Do you agree with the quote above? If not, why?

Albert: No, I don't because Jesus introduced a new ethic. Galations says that he was "born under the law", not that he lived under the law. And who says he had to keep the Mosaic Law perfectly in order to redeem us? He was the king of the new kingdom that was being established. He had to live the new, higher, ethic perfectly.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My approach, as a hyper-dispensationalist, is that the scriptures must be perspicuous enough to justify me "letting every man be a liar" who contradicts my interpretation of scripture - for that is what God commands us to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Are you saying that there is absolutely nothing on which Christians can legitimately disagree, without being called a liar? Should I do so to you? If you are going to take such a strict approach, which the Bible does not authorise, then beware. The Bible also says that you will be judged with the same severity with which you judge others. Your theology, in my view, is severly unscriptural. So you are treading on thin ice in being so rigid in judgement. Although I disagree with you, I wouldn't say that you are a liar. You're just a Christian who is mistaken in some of their understandings of scripture. You yourself are an Acts 28 ultradispensationalist; but you disagree on at least some issues with Bullinger, who was the founder of that position. Would you exclude Bullinger as a liar?

---

quote:

---

Are you making a distinction between "Jew" and "Israelite"? Is that "literal interpretation"? That is so ludicrous that I almost can't be bothered responding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jefscott
Here is a fine example. To call me ludicrous is just as insulting as calling me a liar. And if you want to terminate our discussion because I'm so much your intellectual inferior, then so be it. I will make my final post in a few (several?) days and we can call it quits.

---