[Freedom]

I have a few comments to make here. First of all, I think that the footnote on John the Baptist represents how WL wanted to see things. WL's claim regarding the existence of a "transitional period" was his excuse for what didn't match up.

As a dispensationalist, WL seemed intent on squeezing the Bible into certain molds and timelines. Maybe there is value in seeing the correlation between events and what changes occurred over time, but it misses the important reason of why such things occurred in the first place. John the Baptist was not there to "initiate God's new Testament economy", he was there to "prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." Likewise, Jesus did not come to this earth to initiate a some dispensation or to give us reason to talk about "dead religion". Jesus coming to this earth was for atonement. Ironically, in the LC, this basic fact is commonly characterized as the "low gospel". I find this to be significant because it shifts the focus from the gospel itself to other things that might become thematic, such as "Christ versus Religion".

I believe that WL liked Jesus' interaction with the Pharisees, because it gave him the opportunity to compare the LC to 'religion'. The LC and all the associated practices were viewed as being part of this "nothing old" ideology. Within the LC, it's almost as if this idea of the LC being better than 'religion' can be, or is a replacement for the gospel itself. If the NT is read a certain way, sure, someone could walk away with the notion that a definite change took place, and that Jesus was fed up with 'religion'. That however, misses the point entirely.

Regarding the existence of a transitional period, I do agree that Jesus' coming was the beginning of a transition, however, I don't think that the transition was anything like what WL wanted us to think that it was. According to WL's ideology, Jesus should have had nothing to do with 'religion'. Why then did Jesus visit and teach in the temple and synagogues? Why were the apostles to be found in the temple, even after the day of Pentecost took place? The fact is that Christ fulfilled the law, but that doesn't mean that automatically everything else got thrown out. Some of the "leftovers" really weren't of concern at all. I was just reading Galatians recently and it finally occurred to me that when Paul confronted Peter, it really wasn't about a divergence in practices between the Jewish and Gentile believers, it was about Peter's playing the hypocrite, and just as importantly, it was about anything that detracted from being justified by faith in Christ.