Law was an impossible system to keep

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The context in Acts 15 was 'certain of the sect of the Pharisees' making a claim about gentiles being required to be circumcised and keep the law. What the Pharisees were demanding is the issue under discussion. Peter said 'our fathers', and the phrase means 'our ancestors'. I did not claim 'our fathers' only referred to Pharisees.

I know. But my point was "our fathers" were not able to keep the Law. That means whatever Peter's fathers were beneath, it was something too heavy a yoke to bear. And what was it they were beneath? Sinaitic covenant. Peter would not have included "our fathers" if it was a Pharisaical distortion of the law. So my point was Peter was indeed talking about Sinaitic covenant as an impossible system to abide under.

The phrase 'our fathers', meaning ancestors, included everyone back to Noah, and back to Adam, who were ancestors of the Jews. You yourself however would admit that the fathers being discussed are a limited group of those ancestors, namely those under the Sinaitic covenant. Thus, 'our fathers' is to be understood in a limited sense, rather than a wooden literal sense. So the question is: how limited?

There was no question that is was fathers under the Sinaitic covenant. That is a given since it is Law that the issue focused upon.

Peter says that whatever it is the Pharisee faction in the church wanted to impose was a burden that could not be borne.

No. It was simply demanding Sinaitic law upon the church. No one could bear that. And we know it is Sinaitic law because Peter indicated "our fathers" were not able to bear it.

It was 'tempting God' to require anyone to do what the Pharisee faction wanted done. So, what did the Pharisee faction want? I already demonstrated from the Bible and from history that the Pharisees' understanding of what is 'the law' is quite different from simply 'the Sinaitic covenant' as recorded in the scripture.

That is the not the issue, though. SImply by Peter's reference to "our fathers" we know that Isarael under law, long before Pharisaism existed, could not bear the sinaitic covenant. Peter does not distinguish Pharisaism from Sinaitic Law here, because Pharisaism was not the problem. The problem was imposing circumcision on the gentiles, and that was not a pharisaical distinction. It was a distinction of Law.

It was this sort of demand:

Exo 12:48....And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

If there was something the Pharisees engaged in that was not involved with Sinaitic Law, and that was the issue, then Peter would have stated something that had nothing to do with Law but Pharisaism alone. And that was simply not the case. Circumcision for gentiles is FROM LAW.

I also demonstrated from the Bible that the Pharisees were responsible for 'adding unbearable burdens' in the name of 'the law', and that these unbearable burdens were NOT part of the old covenant, but were a twisted, man-made, addition to the old covenant. There is no verse of scripture that speaks of the old covenant as 'unbearable' or as 'tempting God', nor is there any verse that speaks of adherence to the law of God as being 'tempting God'.

I already responded to the issue of tempting God. It was tempting God to demand the Sinaitic Law's requirement of circumcision to gentiles whom God already filled with His Spirit , since it was as if they would say God should not have done that since they were not yet circumcised. THAT was the element that tempted God. Acts 15:10 distinctly says LAW -- not pharisaism -- was a yoke no man could bear. And that is proved out in Romans 7 where Paul said Law was ordained to life but he found it to be unto death. A yoke none could bear.

In regards to the actual Sinaitic covenant itself, without reference to the Pharisaic additions and alterations, that covenant was a temporary covenant.

Amen! But that was something many in the church did not realize at the timeframe of Acts 15. That was the whole problem!

This is clear from both the Old Testament and the New Testament scriptures. The Sinaitic covenant could not secure genuine and permament remission of sins, except in anticipation of - and ultimately because of - the cross. (The old covenant looked forward to the cross as the basis of remission of sins. Anyone 'saved' under the old covenant was saved because of the then-future work of the cross, because there is NONE saved apart from the cross, one way or the other.)

Exactly, but that is not the point here. The point is some in the church thought it was extended into the church, and circumcision was the first step to see gentiles inducted into it!

Your claim that Peter was referring to 'Israelite ancestors under a burden they could not bear before any Pharisee ever came along' does not follow from the immediate context.

It most certainly does. And circumcision was the issue. Not pharisaism.

The key phrase is not 'our fathers', as that is a generic term for ancestors. The key phrase is 'certain of the sect of the Pharisees... said...' because that is who raised the issue, and the issue involves a Pharisaic interpretation of 'the law', because with Pharisees 'the law' means one thing, whereas with you and I, 'the law' means something else.

No, there is nothing in the context to say the issue was pharisaism. The more apt key than what both of us noted is this:

Act 15:1....And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

That's it and that's what Peter addressed. Peter said God put no difference between Gentiles and Jews in giving gentiles the Spirit. But they were tempting God in demanding a difference. Gentiles had to be baptized ACCORDING TO MOSES as I demonstrated above with the Exodus reference. Or they could not enter corporate worship with Israel. This has nothing to do with pharisaism.

If I was correct, how else would Peter explain the point that Gentiles need not be circumcised than what we read in Acts 15? I stated that if you were correct Peter would have distinguished Mosaic law from Pharisaism, but he didn't. There's no other way to distinguish my view's issues than what is read in Acts 15, though.

My understanding of what was going on in Acts 15 is not based on nor dependent on the term 'our fathers', but on the actual issue at hand - which was Pharisees making demands about certain people 'keeping the law'.

If you were correct, Peter would have stated, "But what to consider to be keeping the law was not what Moses intended." But that was not the issue, because both Pharisees and genuine lawkeepers following sinaitic covenant believed Gentiles had to be circumcised to enter corporate worship with Israel. So, Peter stated that is not the case under the new covenant of Israel and Judah. Yes, gentiles were joining the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12, 19), but circumcision of the flesh is not the way like it was under Sinaitic covenant.

This is where dispensationalism is similar to your view. You believe it does not have to be mentioned that Pharisaism was different from actual Mosaic Law in order for us to follow the context. But it does have to be mentioned. Everything they were arguing about was part of actual Mosaic Law. CIRCUMCISION. Sinaitic covenant demanded it as much as Pharisaism did.

Was Peter saying the Sinatic covenant was an unbearable burden?

YES!

Was Peter saying obeying the commands of God was an unbearable burden? Or was Peter saying the scribal, Pharisaic enforcement and teaching and propagation of both the Sinatic covenant, and the commands of God, was an unbearable burden?

Sinaitic Law was an unbearable yoke. Plain and simple. And that was what PAUL stated in Romans 7.

Rom 7:10....And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

The faction creating the disturbance were Pharisees 'that believed'. This means they were members of the new covenant. So they were not demanding that gentiles enter the old covenant and become Jews, per se, in and of itself. They wanted gentiles to submit to a pharisaic version of new covenant faith and practice. We can see echoes of this in Romans fourteen, and other places as well.

No, Peter never distinguished their views from actual Law. They were discussing Actual Law. They felt it carried on into the church just as you feel we must still keep feasts of Israel (no offence intended).

From this, we know that Peter was not saying the Sinatic covenant was an unbearable burden, because that was not the issue. That leaves options 2 and 3: either the commands of God are an unbearable burden, or a Pharisaic interpretation (halachah) is an unbearable burden.

The commandments of God are an unbearable burden.

Rom 7:10....And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.