Theology Club: The Body of Christ and the Dispensation of Grace

[Nick M]

I do not believe they are interchangable terms. I believe there is over lap.

Israel is to receive grace and be dead to sin. Israel as a nation is to what I am refering. The law will be written on their hearts, causing them to keep the statutes. They will sin no more. That is not the Body of Christ where there is no sin and no law.

The dispensation of grace is specifically to make Israel jealous. Romans 11:11 explicitly defines this for us. We are dead to sin without the law or keeping it.

What do we have in scripture to the contrary?

 

[surrender]

The dispensation of grace is specifically to make Israel jealous. Romans 11:11explicitly defines this for us.

I don’t see Jews jealous today. I see them disgusted and angry with us but not jealous. During the first century, there was certainly something to be jealous of—believers in Messiah were performing miracles, speaking in tongues (indicating God’s intention to judge Israel), etc. Is it possible Paul was speaking of a first century only phenomena in Rom. 11:11?

We are dead to sin without the law or keeping it.

What “law” is it we don’t have to keep? Don’t we “keep” the law of Moses when we love God and our neighbor (Mark 12:33; Rom. 13:9-10; Gal. 5:14)

 

[Nick M]

I don’t see Jews jealous today.

Paul referred to the nation of Israel, not descendants of Abraham or Jacob today. And the jealousy was over salvation. Paul is explicit. Salvation has come to the gentiles to make Israel jealous.

During the first century, there was certainly something to be jealous of—believers in Messiah were performing miracles, speaking in tongues (indicating God’s intention to judge Israel), etc. Is it possible Paul was speaking of a first century only phenomena in Rom. 11:11?

No, because he says salvation. And he is refering to Genesis 12, requiring gentiles blessing Israel to approach God. Now, we are saved through their fall to make them jealous. That isn't a part of Pentecost which isn't the Body of Christ.

What “law” is it we don’t have to keep?

Any of it. If you love God with all your heart mind and soul, you wouldn't need salvation. But if you tried for the purpose of salvation, and want to be judged on your works, then that is what would happen. Those not in the book of life will be judged on their works. And they will be found guilty by the law.

 

[surrender]

Paul referred to the nation of Israel, not descendants of Abraham or Jacob today.

Paul was also referring to individual Jews, descendants of Abraham or Jacob: “…if somehow I might move to jealousy my countrymen and save some of them” (Rom. 11:14).

And the jealousy was over salvation. Paul is explicit. Salvation has come to the gentiles to make Israel jealous.

Yes, I realize that, but it’s possible this "jealousy phenomena" was limited to the first century.

No, because he says salvation. And he is refering to Genesis 12, requiring gentiles blessing Israel to approach God. Now, we are saved through their fall to make them jealous. That isn't a part of Pentecost which isn't the Body of Christ.

We continue to be the conduit of God’s message of salvation because of their fall in the first century, but modern Israel doesn’t require Gentiles to bless them to approach God through them, so how is the jealousy idea going to work today? I don't see how why it would.

I don’t understand your point about Pentecost.

Any of it. If you love God with all your heart mind and soul, you wouldn't need salvation.

Why does God through Paul command us to love our neighbor as ourself if we can’t obey it (Rom. 13:8-11; Gal. 5:13-14)? “…’You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. DO THIS, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep” (Rom. 13:10-11).

But if you tried for the purpose of salvation, and want to be judged on your works, then that is what would happen.

Who said anything about loving God and neighbor for the purpose for salvation?

 

[Nick M]

Yes, I realize that, but it’s possible this "jealousy phenomena" was limited to the first century.

At the time, yes. Paul's letters seem to indicate they expected a restoration sooner rather than later.

We continue to be the conduit of God’s message of salvation because of their fall in the first century, but modern Israel doesn’t require Gentiles to bless them to approach God through them, so how is the jealousy idea going to work today? I don't see how why it would.

Today or back then isn't so much the issue. Gentile salvation came about by first blessing Israel, and that was put aside and salvation instead came through their fall. Do you disagree with that?

I don’t understand your point about Pentecost.

Pentecost was not the beginning of the Body of Christ. And Acts 5 shows it can't possibly be the dispensation of grace. They had to endure to the end to be saved. Paul never said that about his gospel. And later he directly says he was the first in the Body of Christ, and the pattern of salvation. He was made alive while dead in his tresspasses and sin. That isn't what the story of the prodigal son was about. He was saved as an enemy of Christ. That is the pattern to the Body.

Why does God through Paul command us to love our neighbor as ourself

Because it is the right thing to do. Some people have to be told not to steal their neighbors wallet. This however, has no bearing on salvation.

Who said anything about loving God and neighbor for the purpose for salvation?

You just did, including in this post. I edited out redundancies from us. You asked why did he command it. So to me that means it is a requirement. Did I miss your point?

 

[surrender]

At the time, yes. Paul's letters seem to indicate they expected a restoration sooner rather than later.

I agree. But because of the continual rejection of the leadership of Israel, the restoration was put on hold. The jealousy didn’t work as planned, because the promise of restoration was conditional.

Today or back then isn't so much the issue. Gentile salvation came about by first blessing Israel, and that was put aside and salvation instead came through their fall. Do you disagree with that?

I agree. The God's message of salvation came through Israel. However, individual Gentiles in distant lands who never heard of Israel were judged based on their response to God’s general revelation (Rom. 1:19-20).

Pentecost was not the beginning of the Body of Christ. And Acts 5 shows it can't possibly be the dispensation of grace. They had to endure to the end to be saved. Paul never said that about his gospel. And later he directly says he was the first in the Body of Christ, and the pattern of salvation. He was made alive while dead in his tresspasses and sin. That isn't what the story of the prodigal son was about. He was saved as an enemy of Christ. That is the pattern to the Body.

I don’t think I’m seeing the point you’re trying to make. How does what you’ve written support your view that the jealousy idea is still working today?

Because it is the right thing to do. Some people have to be told not to steal their neighbors wallet. This however, has no bearing on salvation.

I never said it did.

You just did, including in this post. I edited out redundancies from us. You asked why did he command it. So to me that means it is a requirement. Did I miss your point?

I think so. You (now) agree it’s a command but don’t think it’s a “requirement” for salvation, so why can’t I? You said that you don’t need to love God with all your heart mind and soul or seek to fulfill any of the commandments of God. God, through Paul, has commanded us to seek to fulfill all the commandments of God by loving our neighbor as ourselves. It’s a command. We ARE asked to “keep the law.”

Maybe this will help. My son remains my son even when he disobeys me. I continue to ask him to keep my rules and when he doesn’t, I discipline him in hopes to refine him. I know that keeping my rules will help him become a better person. But his lack of obedience doesn’t mean he’s no longer my son. It’s not a requirement for sonship.

 

[Tambora]

Maybe this will help. My son remains my son even when he disobeys me. I continue to ask him to keep my rules and when he doesn’t, I discipline him in hopes to refine him. I know that keeping my rules will help him become a better person. But his lack of obedience doesn’t mean he’s no longer my son. It’s not a requirement for sonship.

While it is true that a father's son will always be a son; it is not true that every son is guaranteed the same inheritance from his father.

 

[surrender]

While it is true that a father's son will always be a son; it is not true that every son is guaranteed the same inheritance from his father.

Okay. But I'm not sure how that's relevant to what we were discussing. We are expected to keep the laws of God.

 

[Tambora]

We are expected to keep the laws of God.

Or else ..... what?

 

[Lighthouse]

In order to be saved one must be as obedient as Christ. Are any of us capable of that? Of course not! But we have what Christ has done for us, and if we accept that it is then imputed to us and it is through that we have salvation. We are incapable of keeping the law to the fullest extent, and if we falter in one we are guilty of all. And God knows we are incapable, and thus does not expect us to keep the law; rather He sent His Son to die for us so that we may be saved regardless of our own state or actions.

And yet we should not take this for granted; we have been made dead to sin and alive in Christ, therefore we should act accordingly. How can we who are dead to sin live in it any longer?

 

[surrender]

Or else ..... what?

I don’t believe we are adopted into God’s family by coercion. We get to make a choice. Those who genuinely choose God don’t ask that question. Those who want to know how much they can get away with and still be accepted are not choosing God at all. However, it should be known that God’s laws are put in place for a reason. They are for our good. And we will reap what we sow, whether in this age or the next.

 

[surrender]

In order to be saved one must be as obedient as Christ. Are any of us capable of that? Of course not! But we have what Christ has done for us, and if we accept that it is then imputed to us and it is through that we have salvation. We are incapable of keeping the law to the fullest extent,

Who said anything about having to keep the law to the fullest extent?

and if we falter in one we are guilty of all. And God knows we are incapable, and thus does not expect us to keep the law;…

So, just because we can’t keep the law to the fullest extent, we shouldn’t attempt to keep the law?

Reminds me of my son. When I tell him I’m disappointed when he disobeys me he says, “I can’t be perfect!” That’s not what I’m asking. I’m not asking him to be perfect; I’m asking him to obey me. Obedience is far from perfection.

Besides, God does tell us through Paul that He expects us to obey His law: “…’You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. DO THIS, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep” (Rom. 13:9-11).

 

[Lighthouse]

Who said anything about having to keep the law to the fullest extent?

God.

We must be righteous to enter Heaven.

So, just because we can’t keep the law to the fullest extent, we shouldn’t attempt to keep the law?

Not what I said. You need to keep reading before you comment.

Reminds me of my son. When I tell him I’m disappointed when he disobeys me he says, “I can’t be perfect!” That’s not what I’m asking. I’m not asking him to be perfect; I’m asking him to obey me. Obedience is far from perfection.

Yet God wants us to be perfect.

Besides, God does tell us through Paul that He expects us to obey His law: “…’You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. DO THIS, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep” (Rom. 13:9-11).

And yet Paul is also the one to tell us we are not under the law.

 

[surrender]

God.

When I asked who said anything about having to keep the law to the fullest extent, I meant in this thread.

We must be righteous to enter Heaven.

Well…I’d say innocent or righteous. If Adam & Eve had remained innocent, they wouldn’t have had to become righteous. Now that we are no longer innocent, the righteousness that is fit for heaven is much more than obeying a bunch of good, godly laws. The righteousness fit for God’s kingdom is purity from the inside out, which isn’t a direct result of obeying laws; it’s the result of refinement through godly love. That's something only God can do.

Not what I said.

Yes, you said the equivalent to, “Because we can’t keep the law to the fullest extent we should not attempt to keep the law” when you wrote, “God knows we are incapable [of keeping the law to the fullest extent], and thus does not expect us to keep the law.” Why should we attempt to keep something God doesn’t expect us to keep?

You need to keep reading before you comment.

I know you go on to say we should act in accordance with our new life in Christ, but you did say that God does not expect us to keep the law since we are incapable of keeping it to the fullest extent. Your statements seem contradictory to me. Why would Paul ask you to act in accordance with your new life in Christ if God doesn’t expect you to? God DOES expect you to act in accordance with your new life in Christ which is the equivalent to keeping the law (i.e. loving your neighbor as yourself).

Yet God wants us to be perfect.

God wants us to obey Him. Evidence that He doesn’t expect us to obey His laws perfectly are seen in the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood. Why would God provide allowances if He really thought we could obey Him perfectly? The righteousness fit for God’s kingdom is not something we can create by “doing” (i.e. obeying laws), even if we do them perfectly without fail. Noah was considered a righteous man, blameless in his time, and Paul was considered blameless and a righteous man according to the law. Both needed more than their own righteousness to be fit for God’s kingdom. Otherwise, why the need of a Savior?

And yet Paul is also the one to tell us we are not under the law.

If Paul tells us that we should obey God’s law and then says we’re not under it, it’s our responsibility to reconcile what we perceive as an inconsistency. We can’t just throw a Scripture out or ignore it because it doesn’t reconcile with our current doctrine. So, whatever Paul means by us not being under the law, it doesn’t mean we are not to obey it.

 

[Nick M]

My son remains my son even when he disobeys me. I continue to ask him to keep my rules and when he doesn’t, I discipline him in hopes to refine him. I know that keeping my rules will help him become a better person. But his lack of obedience doesn’t mean he’s no longer my son. It’s not a requirement for sonship.

I don't want to go down a rabbit trail, and we already did. I will come back, but have some nasty rebukes to hand out in the "Christian" forum first.

 

[surrender]

I don't want to go down a rabbit trail, and we already did.

Rabbit trails can be interesting.

I will come back, but have some nasty rebukes to hand out in the "Christian" forum first.

Go get 'em! But...if you rebuke me, be nice when you do it.

 

[Lighthouse]

When I asked who said anything about having to keep the law to the fullest extent, I meant in this thread.

Irrelevant to the point I was making, then.

Well…I’d say innocent or righteous. If Adam & Eve had remained innocent, they wouldn’t have had to become righteous. Now that we are no longer innocent, the righteousness that is fit for heaven is much more than obeying a bunch of good, godly laws. The righteousness fit for God’s kingdom is purity from the inside out, which isn’t a direct result of obeying laws; it’s the result of refinement through godly love. That's something only God can do.

A refinement? Or a regeneration, a renewal, a recreation?

Yes, you said the equivalent to, “Because we can’t keep the law to the fullest extent we should not attempt to keep the law” when you wrote, “God knows we are incapable [of keeping the law to the fullest extent], and thus does not expect us to keep the law.” Why should we attempt to keep something God doesn’t expect us to keep?

No I didn't. You read into it, without basis. And if you had read further you would have read my explanation for why we should do the right thing, to the best of our ability. But you decided to jump to conclusions without all the facts, and that's like jumping off a desert cliff without a parachute.

I know you go on to say we should act in accordance with our new life in Christ, but you did say that God does not expect us to keep the law since we are incapable of keeping it to the fullest extent. Your statements seem contradictory to me. Why would Paul ask you to act in accordance with your new life in Christ if God doesn’t expect you to? God DOES expect you to act in accordance with your new life in Christ which is the equivalent to keeping the law (i.e. loving your neighbor as yourself).

No, my statement was that God does not expect us to keep the law fully, not that He doesn't want or expect us to be obedient as best we can.

And yet, even then we are not expected to keep the law, as we are not under the law. There is no law for us to keep under grace.

We should love, not because it is the law, but because it is right.

God wants us to obey Him. Evidence that He doesn’t expect us to obey His laws perfectly are seen in the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood. Why would God provide allowances if He really thought we could obey Him perfectly? The righteousness fit for God’s kingdom is not something we can create by “doing” (i.e. obeying laws), even if we do them perfectly without fail. Noah was considered a righteous man, blameless in his time, and Paul was considered blameless and a righteous man according to the law. Both needed more than their own righteousness to be fit for God’s kingdom. Otherwise, why the need of a Savior?

If Paul tells us that we should obey God’s law and then says we’re not under it, it’s our responsibility to reconcile what we perceive as an inconsistency. We can’t just throw a Scripture out or ignore it because it doesn’t reconcile with our current doctrine. So, whatever Paul means by us not being under the law, it doesn’t mean we are not to obey it.

I see no argument with my position in this last part.

 

[surrender]

A refinement? Or a regeneration, a renewal, a recreation?

Yes.

No I didn't. You read into it, without basis. And if you had read further you would have read my explanation for why we should do the right thing, to the best of our ability. But you decided to jump to conclusions without all the facts, and that's like jumping off a desert cliff without a parachute.

Um, no. I didn’t die… Besides, I still feel I was correct in my appraisal that you are presenting contradictory ideas (evidence below).

No, my statement was that God does not expect us to keep the law fully, not that He doesn't want or expect us to be obedient as best we can.

And yet, even then we are not expected to keep the law, as we are not under the law. There is no law for us to keep under grace.

These statements above are contradictory. Either “He expects us to be obedient to the law” or “we are not expected to keep the law.”

We should love, not because it is the law, but because it is right.

Love is love. It doesn’t matter why we love as long as it is genuine love. If we genuinely love because God tells us to (i.e. “obey the law”), it’s still genuine love. If we genuinely love because it’s right, it’s still genuine love. And whether we love out of obedience to the law or because it is right—which sounds like the same thing to me, anyway—when we love, we obey the law.

I see no argument with my position in this last part.

Cool. So what do you think Paul means by us not being under the law, considering he tells us that we should obey God’s law? God, through Paul, commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Rom. 13:8-11; Gal. 5:13-14). We are told that we are to owe no one anything, but we are expected to love one another because this fulfills the law. So, in essence, we are expected to obey and fulfill the law through our love for one another. Yet, we are not under the law. What does it mean to not be under the law and still obey it through love?

 

[chickenman]

Hi, Nick.

I agree that the "dispensation of grace" and the "body of Christ" aren't interchangeable terms. They're defined differently, and the latter operates within the former. I see (as you do) that the body of Christ (I'll be more specific and say "the one new man"), as the entity in which believers would be sealed, was not instituted until God began the dispensation of grace.

I THINK you were implying that the dispensation of grace will continue on past the time when God is through with the one new man here on earth. Did I understand right? Can you clarify?

Thanks,
Randy

 

[glorydaz]

I do not believe they are interchangable terms. I believe there is over lap.

Israel is to receive grace and be dead to sin. Israel as a nation is to what I am refering. The law will be written on their hearts, causing them to keep the statutes. They will sin no more. That is not the Body of Christ where there is no sin and no law.

The dispensation of grace is specifically to make Israel jealous. Romans 11:11 explicitly defines this for us. We are dead to sin without the law or keeping it.

What do we have in scripture to the contrary?

You don't think the law is written in our heart? I believe it is...the Royal Law of Love from which all the law and prophets hang.

Colossians 2:10-12
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.