Expert: Marvin Howard - 9/16/2006

Question

-------------------------

Followup To

Question -

-------------------------

Followup To

Question -
This is a quote from the website you sent me to
"And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the LORD, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to [them which were] not my people, Thou [art] my people; and they shall say, [Thou art] my God." (emphasis mine, MRH)

Those people who would be called God's people are Gentiles. This was fulfilled in Acts chapter 10, as Cornelius, a Gentile, became saved."

My question is about the exact moment you believe the Sabbath was done away with. Hosea says in that day (the same day he will say to a people who were not his people that they are his people) that on that day the Sabbath will cease to be a command. My question is, are you holding to the position that this means the Sabbath was in effect until Acts 10 or was it nailed to the cross at calvery? I believe the law is nailed to the cross for us when we come to the Lord, which is explained below. Notice it says in that day, seemingly meaning one singular day, but 2 Corinthians 6:2 says now is the day of salvation. Paul did not limit salvation to being possible that day only.
Below is part of a study guide on Ephesians I put together. It deals with when the law is done away.
2:15)    Now to another point: does Matthew 5:17-19 contradict Ephesians 2:13-16) ? The way to answer this is to examine what has really been said in each verse and then compare the two.. First notice what Jesus says is not his purpose then notice what he says is his purpose. Jesus says in v.17 that he did not come to [or purpose to] do what? abolish the law or the prophets.
What did he purpose to do in the same verse? – to fulfill them.
Does he say the law was never to be abolished or that a condition had to be met first? He says it would have to be fulfilled or accomplished.
Isn’t that was Jesus said was his purpose?
So the obvious conclusion to draw from that is that he either fulfilled it and all that was written in the law and prophets was accomplished or Jesus didn’t fulfill his purpose, which means you ultimately are saying that you believe he failed.
How would one fulfill the law and prophets?
Did Jesus do this according to Luke 24:36-48? Note that the ultimate fulfillment of this came after he ascended back to heaven and the teaching began “in his name” which meant that he was still the one doing it Galatians 2:20.
What would happen to the Law once it had served it’s purpose and been fulfilled? Let me illustrate.  Should I have an appointment with the dentist, and announce to the receptionist, "I have come, not to destroy my appointment, but to fulfill it," I would complete all that the appointment called for.  I would have fulfilled the appointment and not destroyed it.  But, let me ask, would the appointment still be in force?  No, it was fulfilled.  So it was with Christ.  When he fulfilled the law we were delivered from it.  It has been fulfilled! Luke 24:44-49 Jesus claims to have met the requirements he laid out in order for the Law to change.

Isaiah 53:1-6 He was crushed for who’s iniquity? If he had sinned then He wouldn’t he have suffered for his own iniquity?
#2-Now on to Ephesians 2:13-16 What is said to have been Jesus’ purpose? To make one new man out of all races and reconcile us to God.This happens when we’re baptized into Christ and no longer under law Romans 6:3-11 the reason is because Jesus blood washes away our sins Acts 22:16 and we through him fulfill the law because at that point we’re made perfect law keepers in God’s eyes and every one who does this is made this one new man [Christ], which is why all this talk of abolishment and peace being made is mentioned following v.13 which mentions his blood which brings us near. So the purpose stated in Matthew is the same purpose stated in Ephesians and there is no contradiction the only difference is Paul goes into how it happens in our lives where as Jesus states what he was to do in order for it to be possible in our lives.
So far we have seen that it wasn’t his purpose to abolish the law and that it was his purpose to create one new man [one in Christ –Galatians 3:26-29 which is being born again or made a new creation] and reconcile us to God, so do you believe these contradict one another when one says he didn’t come to do something and the other says he did come to do this other thing?  
Abolished in his flesh ...
The thought here is similar to that in Heb. 10:20, where the new and living way is said to have been opened up through the veil, that is to say, his flesh Regarding the "middle wall of partition ..." This probably is a symbolical reference to the partition in the temple which set apart the court of the Gentiles. Its destruction was typified in the rending of the veil of the temple at the time of the crucifixion (Matt. 27:51).  
Abolished the enmity ...
I believe this has 2 parts – enmity between us and God and enmity between Jew and Gentile [all races].
v   Now let’s discuss further how this happens in our lives
v   In Galatians 2:18 Paul says that he tore down the law and the word for tore is the Greek word “kathaireo” defined by Vines as “to cast down by force”. And by “E.W. Bullinger as “to loosen down, to dissolve, i.e. to disunite the parts of anything, spoken of buildings to throw down, put an end to.” The question is how do we [like Paul] personally put an end to the law in our lives according to the context in Galatians 2:15-20? When we are crucified with Christ
v   How is one crucified with Christ according to Romans 6:3-6?
v   Is the law abolished for everyone or just those who have been crucified with Christ according to Romans 6:3-11?
v   Jesus said before the Law could be removed it had to be fulfilled and he did that in his life, but does that mean there is no Law for anyone now or is that only for those who have been baptized into Christ according to Romans 8:1-4? He fulfills it in our lives when our old self dies and we put on Christ and remember it has to be fulfilled before it can be removed which is why if I’m in Christ I cannot be condemned.  Of course being in Christ is always a choice and I can choose to continue in sin and still be condemned.
v   Colossians 2:9-17- Paul states that it was nailed to the cross. Looking closely at the context, who is the debt canceled for and who is it nailed to the cross for? He says that he forgave us “by” [key word] canceling out our debt and nailing the law to the cross. So when we’re forgiven we have the law abolished (tore down, Galatians 2:18) in our lives which happens once when we’re baptized into Christ Acts 2:38 and Ephesians 1:7. So the obvious conclusion is that everyone who has not been baptized into Christ is still under the old law or you would have to say that the whole world has been forgiven apart from obeying the gospel.  
v   So is this accurate that the world is still under the old law until they are baptized into Christ according to Romans 3:19-20? Notice the distinction he makes between himself (baptized believer and the world.
v   What did it state was the purpose of the Law of Moses?
v   Let’s define a “byproduct” = A parent is offered a dream job in another state. She purposes to relocate and take the job. The byproduct is that her child now has to change schools out of necessity because the child cannot remain at that school and the parent be able to carry out her purpose of taking the job.
v   With a definite understanding of what a byproduct is let’s examine Matthew 5:17-18 again. He says that he didn’t purpose to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill and yet over in Hebrews 7:11-18 Says the law has changed as a byproduct of the priesthood changing. So how do we harmonize these 2 verses? By asking who is Jesus high priest of which we can have answered for us in Hebrews 3:1 & 4:14 & 10:19-21 which says he is the high priest of those who share in the heavenly calling and that is not people outside of the church or house of God [household]. So the law has not changed for the world, but rather only for the church which is the same thing taught in the other verses that we’ve been looking at. Also call to mind what a priests duty was, intercession between God and his chosen people. Well who are his chosen people now according to 1 Peter 2:9 [keeping in mind who he’s addressing as stated in 1:3]? His chosen people are his possession who are they according to Acts 20:28? How does one become one of his chosen people according to Acts 2:36-47? Another thing to think about is, Israel’s high priest was not high priest of the world, but only of the chosen people and since that was the shadow of the priesthood to come it stands to reason that only the chosen people are under his priesthood.         
v   Can we conclude from what has been said so far that if we reject the law change it is the same as saying we reject Jesus as high priest?
v   According to Hebrews 9:11-18 what had to happen before the covenant could change [keeping in mind covenant and the law are synonymous]?
v   Now does this verse harmonize with all the others we have mentioned? Yes he fulfilled all prophecies about him and kept the law perfectly then died for us and ascended and the gospel was preached beginning in Jerusalem [all was accomplished] and then the old law [covenant] could be done away with and this new covenant could then be entered into by anyone who would meet the conditions Jesus set forth in it. Which is plainly seen to have taken place in the great commission as recorded in Matthew 28:18-20 & Mark 16:15-16
v   Was the first covenant ever broken by anyone? Jeremiah 31:-34
v   Did God have all rights to establish a new covenant since they broke the first one?  
v   If some were to say that the gentiles were not condemned by the law of Moses because the oracles were not given to them then they would have a hard time understanding how it is they were said to be redeemed from a law they were never under in Galatians 3:13-14 & 4:4-6   Also Ephesians 1:7 [“we” includes gentiles]. In 4:4-6 it says they were redeemed and made sons of God. Now if they were not redeemed from the Law then why are they called sons in Galatians 3:13-29? Did you notice that told us how we’re redeemed from the Law in baptism? Notice all the “us and we” statements? They include the gentiles he writing to.
v   Another proof that only Christians are under the new covenant [being the only ones under Jesus as high priest] and that the world is still under the Law of Moses is seen in that in the great commission as recorded in Matthew and Mark. Who were the Apostles to teach to obey all of Jesus commandments (new covenant)? Those who become disciples by being saved. This is because only Christians are under the new law.
v   Some will argue against this based on John 12:48 which says we will be saved by Jesus’ words and they say that wipes out the idea of us being judged by the Law of Moses. This objection is easily answered with a question that when answered explains it all. When Paul wrote Romans 3:19-20 [which makes a distinction between those under Law and himself and those he’s talking to] was that Jesus’ words or his? If he was inspired by the Holy Spirit then he had to be speaking Jesus words look at 2 Corinthians 3:17. It is still Jesus words judging us because he authorized Paul to write that the world is under the Law of Moses and he authorized him to make the distinction between himself [a Christian] and the unbelieving world.
v   A verse some may use to contend that the old Law is done away with for the world also is Matthew 28:18. They simply ask , how much authority does that leave Moses or David etc.? this objection is again easily answered- none! Unless Jesus gives it to him. Which according to Paul he does in Romans 3:19-20. Matthew 28:18 is a good verse to show that the old testament has no authority over the church which is true because Christ is the head which is the point this study is stressing, but he is not head of the world. He leaves them under Moses authority.
v   According to Romans 8:1-2 when is the Law done away? “in Christ”  
v   In Hebrews 8:7-13 the first covenant is said to be obsolete or not needed any more. It says it is ready to vanish away, which implies that at least for some it’s still what they’re under for justification, but that it is ready to vanish away. When does it vanish away drawing your answer from the context and Romans 11:27? When we enter the new covenant in having our sins removed we make the first covenant vanish away. The whole world is under the old Law till they personally make the old covenant vanish away in their lives.
v   Some claim that he only abolished the ceremonial Law, but does this verse give two aspects of the Law he abolished and if so, what are they? 1. Commandments- refers to the moral Law 2. Ordinances- refers to the ceremonial Law. Both are gone being a part of a covenant that was never made with the church of Christ.
v   Others may go to Colossians 2:14 and say that is also only talking about the ceremonial Law. The verse says this Law had to be removed in order for us to be able to get forgiveness (context starts in 9 and ends in 17). What this stance says is that the moral Law (10 commandments) are not what condemn us, but rather it is the ceremonial that condemns us and had to be removed. Which Law does Paul say condemned him in Romans 7:4-7? Shall not covet is part of the 10 not the ceremonial. Our moral imperfections is what taught us we need Christ Galatians 3:24-25.


Answer -
Hi!

L.J., I figured I might as well get to this now, rather than put it off further. You mention a lot of points, all of which find total agreement from me. You believe that I hold to a position to which I do not ascribe. Therefore, I am going to limit my answer to that germane from the first discussions, and apologize once again for my lack of clarity. This is a difficult subject with which to be concise.

I believe the Law, including the Sabbath, was nailed to the cross in the eyes of God. However, men were slow in accepting this. Consider Peter, himself, not eating with Gentiles even after Cornelius. Paul had to correct him. The Jews sought after signs, as mentioned in Scripture. This was a sign to them that Jesus did, in fact, fulfill the Law. That it may have waited for a little amount of time to occur is probably the providence of God stepping in, allowing the Jewish Christians necessary time to prepare their minds for the foreign prospect of accepting Gentiles as brothers.

Additionally, Peter and John went to the temple on the Sabbath to pray (Acts 3:1). Then, they collected money the following day, Sunday (beginning at Acts 4:35 and knowing that monies are collected on the first day of the week in 1st Corinthians 16), concluding with Annanias and Saphira (in Acts 5). Even the Apostles observed an overlap. After Acts 10, there is no such recorded overlap.

I hope I got everything straightened out with you on this matter. After I get settled, which is about 98% certain to happen if the Lord gives me that much time, I will be happy to answer you more in depth. This will give you more time to study my materials to see if I answer elsewhere, and I should settle fully by the end of October. I am entering the final step of interviewing and auditioning in person this coming weekend. As I am somewhat disabled, it takes me a little longer to do some physical things than normal folks.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962

Marvin,
Take as miuch time as you need in answering any questions I ask. My next question is about something you said that I don't see proved in the text. You said "Additionally, Peter and John went to the temple on the Sabbath to pray (Acts 3:1). Then, they collected money the following day, Sunday (beginning at Acts 4:35". My question is how do you know what day it was in the text since it nevers says the exact day?

Answer -
Hi!

L.J., AllExperts only gives me three days to answer. This one will go fast, so here it goes.

1st Corinthians 16:1-2, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

Monies were to be collected on the first day of the week. Gentile Christians needed this instruction from Paul, being separated from the Jewish brethren who already knew it.

Acts 4:34 - 5:1ff, "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet..."

The "laying by in store" of 1st Corinthians 16:2 is exactly the act we see occurring in Acts 4 & 5: gathering monies for the purpose of helping the needy. Therefore, these actions were necessarily on the first day of the week, or we have here the authority to collect on other days. The immediate action recorded upon their release was to go to their company and report. In the same city, this did not take more than a day, for a half day's journey (Sabbath journey) let them cross the city. Additionally, the questioning by the priests happened in the morning, because they had to be imprisoned to be questioned because it was evening when they healed the man. Notice the Greek for "morrow" (4:5) means "fresh breeze," so this happened while the day was still fresh.

This same gathering, according to the context, is where Peter and John "reported to their own company" the events of their questioning by the priests (Acts 4:23). This questioning was "on the morrow" (Acts 4:5) of the day where they healed the lame man in the name of Jesus, and they did that at the temple where they had gone to pray (worship). In short, the day they went to the temple to pray (regular worship rather than just praying everywhere) was the day before the story of Annanias and Sapphira, which we prove to be on the first day of the week, or Sunday. Therefore, the day Peter and John went to the temple to worship (Acts 3:1), after the resurrection, was on the Sabbath.

Very seldom do we get such an exact time line as this. It must have been included because it was important to assist in determining the fulfillment of prophecy. I believe it to be this prophecy. L.J., I hope this helps you to understand it more clearly.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962

Have you considered Acts 2:46 into your position? It says they met daily in the temple not just on the Sabbath. Therefore them praying in the temple at the hour of prayer doesn't show it to necessarily be the Sabbath that they did it. I agree the first day is the day we worship and take up our collection, Acts 3-5 doesn't prove this. When harmonized with Paul's teachings we can conclude such, but Acts 3-5 would be a bad place to go for a proof text on the issue as it proves only thatg they were giving. I just was askinbg originally if I missed something in the text that proved the day to be the the first day of the week, but it is clear that is not the case. In His service, L.J.  

Answer
Hi!

L.J., I agree with you, going to Acts is a bad source of proof for our giving. It must, as you say, be harmonized with Paul for a proper understanding. However, the two together may be used to prove a further point based on the solidity of 1st Corinthians 16:1-2.

I did, in fact, consider Acts 2:46 in my answer. It doesn't fit with the facts of 3:1. Your follow-up question here actually gives the answer. They "met" daily. This "meeting" was at Solomon's Porch (part of the temple), and was not for worship, but rather for fellowship and learning. The chief priests would never allow a group of Christians to use the inside of the temple for worship. On the other Hand, Solomon's Porch was open to all, including Gentiles. The fact that Acts 3:1 specifies the purpose of this temple visit as praying necessitates a distinct difference between this visit and the daily visits of 2:46.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard
http://www.geocities.com/preacherman_1962
http://360.yahoo.com/preacherman_1962