Search — Theology Explorer

Matthew 5:18 Pharisees Matthew 5:18 iota and tittle

Matthew 5:18 (not a jot or tittle will pass) is about how the Law will not be stripped piecemeal, not about its perpetual applicability

Exegesis of Matthew 5:18 against the Hebrew Roots reading

Matthew 28:20 Hebrew Roots movement Great Commission Gentiles and the Law

Three problems with the Hebrew Roots use of Matthew 28: it misreads Matthew 5, ignores everything Jesus commanded, and contradicts how the Apostles actually applied it

Winger's three-pronged critique of the Matthew 28 argument

Acts 10 Acts 15 Acts 10 Acts 15 Gentile mission

Preview: Book of Acts will be examined next to show how the Apostles actually applied Jesus's commands regarding the Law

Transition to future installments of the series

Acts 10 Acts 15 Acts 10 Acts 15 Hebrew Roots movement

Closing: Next week will cover the Hebrew Roots interpretation of Acts, especially Acts 10 and Acts 15

Series summary and next steps

Mike Winger idea 2019-05-16

Objection: Isaiah 53 is about Israel, not Jesus — and response

McLatchie addresses the modern rabbinic argument that Isaiah 53's Suffering Servant is a personification of the nation of Israel.

Isaiah 53 Isaiah 42 Isaiah 49 Isaiah 53 Suffering Servant messianic prophecy

Mike Winger idea 2019-05-16

Divine plurality in Zechariah 2 — Yahweh sent by Yahweh

McLatchie gives Zechariah 2 as an example of intricate harmonies pointing to the Trinity in the Old Testament.

Zechariah 2 Zechariah 4:8-9 Jonathan McLatchie intricate harmonies Zechariah 2

Acts (book) Hebrew Roots movement contextual interpretation Law of Moses

Video agenda: honest survey of Acts to answer whether followers of Jesus should obey the Law of Moses

Introduction and framing of the video

Acts 10:9-16 dietary laws Acts 10:9-16 Peter's vision

Peter's vision of the sheet with unclean animals (Acts 10:9-16): God tells him to eat all types of animals, both unholy and unclean

Peter's rooftop vision in Acts 10

Acts 10:28 Gentile inclusion Peter (Apostle) clean/unclean distinction

Acts 10:28 gives the authoritative interpretation of the vision: 'God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean' -- the vision is about Gentile inclusion, not food

Peter's own interpretation of his vision

Acts 10 hermeneutics Acts 10 Gentile inclusion

Neither extreme interpretation of Acts 10 is correct: neither 'all food is now clean for everyone' nor 'all food is still unclean' -- the vision primarily establishes Gentile access to the gospel

Balanced interpretation of Acts 10 vision

Acts 10 Acts 10 Hebrew Roots movement Gentile inclusion

Hebrew Roots major argument on Acts 10: the vision was about people (Gentiles), not food -- Winger agrees but argues they miss the connection and the implication for dietary laws

Critique of Hebrew Roots interpretation of Acts 10

Acts 10 hermeneutics Acts 10 dietary laws

Critique of the alternative view: using the idea that all foods are clean to communicate a message while insisting all foods are not actually clean is logically incoherent

Logical critique of Hebrew Roots reading of Acts 10

Acts 15 Acts 15 Hebrew Roots movement 119 Ministries

Hebrew Roots claim: Acts 15 is only about salvation, not sanctification. Winger argues the meeting appears to address both and that the claim is artificially restrictive.

Critique of Hebrew Roots interpretation of Acts 15

Leviticus 17-18 Acts 15:20 John Polhill table fellowship Apostolic Decree Leviticus 17-18

The four Apostolic Decree commands correspond to Leviticus 17-18, which lists things God judges Gentile nations for -- suggesting these were universal moral standards applicable even outside the law

Analysis of the four commands and their OT background

Acts 15:20-21 table fellowship dietary laws Acts 15:20-21

Two interpretations of the four commands: (1) universal moral standards for all Gentile believers, or (2) specifically for Jewish-Gentile table fellowship. Winger favors table fellowship.

Competing interpretations of the Apostolic Decree

Matthew 5 Matthew 28 argument from silence Great Commission Matthew 5

Challenge to Hebrew Roots movement: if Matthew 5 and 28 teach Torah for all, why does Acts never once tell Gentiles to obey the law? The silence disproves the interpretation.

Summary challenge to Hebrew Roots reading of Acts

Romans 6:14 119 Ministries under the law Romans 6:14

119 Ministries' interpretation of Romans 6:14 is the specific target of the episode

Naming the opposing interpreter

Romans 6:14 dominion exegesis 119 Ministries

119 Ministries subtly changes the wording of Romans 6:14 from "dominion" to "under sin"

Third interpretive move: textual alteration

Romans 6:14 dominion Greek exegesis Romans 6:14

Greek word analysis: kyrieuō (dominion) vs. hypo (under) in Romans 6:14

Greek word-level critique of 119 Ministries' interpretation

false dichotomy 119 Ministries law of Christ

The false dichotomy makes 119's interpretation agreeable in isolation but wrong in exclusivity

Winger's summative critique of the false dichotomy

Romans 7 Romans 6:14 119 Ministries Romans 7 Romans 6:14

119 Ministries claims Romans 6:14 introduces the "law of sin and death" — but Paul actually introduces it in Romans 7

Critique of 119's ad hoc exegesis

1 John 4:3 circular reasoning Law of Moses 119 Ministries

119 Ministries' circular argument: freedom from law of sin requires obeying the Law of Moses via 1 John 4:3

Critique of 119's overall logical structure

Romans 6:14 Romans 6:15 Law of Moses under the law Romans 6:14

Romans 6:15 refutes 119's interpretation of Romans 6:14 by context

Contextual argument using the immediately following verse

false teaching 119 Ministries charitable interpretation

Are Hebrew Roots teachers false teachers? Winger extends charity, attributing error to wrong assumptions not bad faith

Q&A: question about false teaching

hermeneutics Law of Moses Old Testament application

How do the Ten Commandments relate to Christians? Against the moral/civil/ceremonial law division

Q&A: Susan and Ron's question about the Ten Commandments today

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 limited atonement 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 fallacy of negative inference

Even granting the Calvinist reading of 2 Cor 5:14, it only affirms Jesus died for the elect — it does not deny he died for others

Winger grants the Calvinist interpretation hypothetically to show it still does not prove limited atonement.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 extent of atonement application of atonement

Winger's interpretation of 2 Cor 5:14: 'all' means all humanity in both occurrences — extent universal, application not

Winger presents his positive interpretation of the passage, arguing both uses of 'all' refer to all humanity.

1 John 2:2 John 11:51-52 limited atonement 1 John 2:2 John 11:51-52

Calvinist reinterpretation of 1 John 2:2: 'whole world' means Gentile believers scattered abroad, paralleled with John 11:51-52

Winger presents the Calvinist counter-argument that 'whole world' in 1 John 2:2 means people from every nation, not every individual.

1 John 3:1 1 John 3:13 1 John 4:3-5 kosmos 1 John 3:1 1 John 3:13

1 John's own usage of 'world' across multiple verses defines the term as the ungodly — not scattered believers

Winger grounds the interpretation of 'world' in 1 John 2:2 by examining how the same author uses the word elsewhere in 1 John.

Mike Winger idea 2019-06-19

Analogy: Parallel details in the B-29 Empire State Building crash (1945) and 9/11 do not mean 9/11 was copied — you need a causal connection

Illustrating that parallel details alone prove nothing without demonstrating causal connection

historicity of Jesus argument from analogy dying and rising gods

Mike Winger idea 2019-06-19

Romans 1:3 refutes the "outer space Jesus" claim — Paul explicitly places Jesus as a historical descendant of David born in the flesh

Exegetical refutation of Carrier's cosmic Jesus interpretation

Romans 1:3 Paul Richard Carrier Davidic descent

Mike Winger idea 2019-06-19

Some mythicists argue "James the brother of the Lord" means a fellow believer, not a biological brother of Jesus

Mythicist reinterpretation of Paul's reference to James

James (brother of Jesus) Paul James (brother of Jesus) Jesus mythicism

1 Corinthians 13:10-12 cessationism continuationism spiritual gifts

1 Corinthians 13:10-12 is the primary cessationist proof-text in the cessationism vs. continuationism debate.

Introduction to the episode. Winger frames the central question: does 1 Cor 13:10-12 teach that tongues, prophecy, and knowledge ceased after the apostolic era?

1 Corinthians 12-14 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 1 Corinthians 12-14 prophecy word of knowledge

1 Corinthians 13:8-13 in context: the love passage is embedded within 1 Cor 12-14, a sustained section on spiritual gifts.

Winger reads the passage aloud (1 Cor 13:8-13) and establishes its literary context before presenting cessationist interpretations.

1 Corinthians 13:10 James 1:23-25 cessationism canon of Scripture to teleion

Cessationist Interpretation 1: "the perfect" (to teleion) = the completed Bible, supported by a mirror/perfect-law parallel in James 1:23-25.

First of two cessationist readings. Proponents cite the shared vocabulary of "mirror" and "perfect" (teleios) between 1 Cor 13 and James 1 to argue the perfect thing is Scripture.

1 Corinthians 13:12 James 1:4 James 1:17 cessationism face to face with God 1 Corinthians 13:12

Rebuttal of Interpretation 1: teleios is a broad word with many non-Scripture referents, and the mirror image in James functions differently than in 1 Cor 13.

Winger raises two problems with equating "the perfect" with the completed Bible.

1 Corinthians 13:8-12 cessationism canon of Scripture to teleion

Cessationist Interpretation 2 (Masters Seminary): prophecy and knowledge = inscripturated revelation; massive time gap between vv. 11 and 12; "the perfect" = the church brought to maturity by the Bible.

Summary of the three key concepts in the Masters Seminary article that underpin its cessationist reading of 1 Cor 13.

1 Corinthians 13:8-12 cessationism to teleion exegesis

Rebuttal of the massive time-gap claim: the verse-by-verse flow of 1 Cor 13:8-12 is continuous; no gap is linguistically justified.

Second major objection. Winger argues the narrative logic of the passage runs uninterrupted from v. 8 through v. 12.