[testallthings]

To micah6v8

My point is to show, by comparing footnotes and events that took place after Christ's resurrection, the inconsistency of the proposition put forth in Mat. 5:23.

Let me quote it again, “In decreeing the new law of the kingdom, the King referred here to the gift and altar of the old dispensation because during the period of His ministry on earth, a transitional period, the ritual law of the old dispensation had not yet come to an end” (RcV, footnote 5:23.2).
This is the claim of the footnote (I am not concerned, at this point, if there is really a transitional period or not). Having stated so boldly that John's the Baptist preaching was the initiation of GNTe and that “nothing old was left and that something new was going to be built up” (RcV, footnote 3:1.2) W.L. has to justify Mat. 5:23. The one speaking in this verse is the Lord Jesus, and so far I have never found W.L. blaming the Lord, he introduces the concept of a transitional period that is in place only during the period of His ministry on earth. So far, so good.

When we come to the book of Acts, we find that the apostles, Peter, James, John and even Paul, were still acting as if they were living in a transitional period. For W.L. there is no doubt they were wrong. He does not ask, “Can these people be wrong? After all they spent 40 days with the Lord after His resurrection, they received the Holy Spirit... What if they are right. Is it true that the transitional period came to an end with the resurrection of Christ?” No. Such questions are not even considered. W.L.'s proposition must stand, everything else can fall.



V. NOT SACRIFICING ANY PORTION OF THE WORD
In determining a truth, sometimes many related verses indicate a certain meaning, but two or three among them cannot be explained in that kind of way. One cannot say that because there were only one or two verses that could not be explained that way, one can therefore sacrifice them and base the exposition on the majority of the verses. If one does that, he is sacrificing a small number of verses. We cannot do this. As long as one or two verses do not allow a certain interpretation, we have to give up that interpretation. We have to respect every portion of the Bible. Only when an interpretation harmonizes with the whole Bible can this interpretation be considered reliable. Any verse that forbids a certain interpretation of the truth must not be sacrificed. Instead, that certain interpretation must be abandoned, and we must wait for God's further revelation. If we study the Bible this way, we will not fall easily into error. (W.L., On Knowing the Bible, Chapter 4, Section 3)