The Book of Hebrews

[Splayd]

Ultimately I see God's standard as eternal and unchanging. I recognise it as the only law by which anyone was or ever will be judged.

I recognise that God's standard of law was in effect long before there ever was a written account of law.

I recognise that the written account given to the Israelites was entirely consistent with any and all matters of law recognised prior to Moses.

I don't consider it was given to the Israelites as a new standard by which they were to live. If that was the case, then God was honouring them with extra restrictions, prohibitions and condemnation. Rather I recognise that it already was the standard by which they were to live and that by providing them with a written account, God was clarifying His standard, that His people might be better able to live according to it.

I don't see that the covenant provided the Israelites with a means of salvation. The laws they were to follow couldn't save them independantly, because they wouldn't keep them perfectly and God knew that. Rather, the covenant was made to set aside a physical nation as an (imperfect) example of how to live according to God's will (which would be a moot point if the Gentiles weren't to follow the example) and as a vehicle to bring the Saviour into the world. The letter of the law needed to be followed in such a disciplined manner, not because it would save them (it wouldn't it) but (apart from the aforementioned reasons) because man tends to stray and those very details were important pointers in recognising the coming Messiah.

I recognise Christ as the perfect example of how to live according to God's will. He is the only one to ever meet God's standard and as such the only way, now or ever, to attain salvation as His perfection covers our imperfection (another moot point if we aren't judged according to that standard). While I recognise that some (Gentile or Jew) may be saved without ever hearing about Jesus... none were or will be saved independant of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

I see no discrepency between the "old laws" and the "new laws" because the truth behind the details is unchanged. ie: God's standard is unchanged. There is only one law, but our expression of it has changed. The way we best live to the standard has necessarily changed, but the principals haven't. From the day Adam and Eve messed up in the garden, death entered the world. There would always be sin (understood through "moral law" and expressed in written law). There would always be the need for a sacrifice to cover that sin. The only sacrifice that would ever do that satisfactorally was Jesus. The "old law"'s requirement for a sacrifice wasn't done away with in Christ. It was realised in Christ. The truth of the "old law"'s expression wasn't done away with. ie: Jesus was the perfect lamb etc... The only thing that changed, in regards to that, is the need to "practice" those sort of "ceremonial" expressions of laws... because they've already been realised in Christ. They are continually kept for us in Him, by Him and through Him. Other ceremonial expressions have changed, in that instead of pointing forward to Christ, they point back to Christ. He was, is and always will be the focus of our salvation.

Keeping the law according to the old ceremonial expressions isn't sinful in and of itself. The disciples did it. Rather, the sin is to keep them in attempt to do what only Christ can; to see the symbol in place of the real. When we recognise the reality in Christ, the symbol is made redundant. That doesn't mean it's taken away or that it's bad in itself. Only that it's not necessary.

The new covenant is simply the reality of living in a world with a risen Saviour and the Holy Spirit to guide us. Are we still to strive to God's standard? Of course! Not to be saved, but because we are saved.

 

[Splayd]

To further clarify:

The example of eating unclean animals is a great one. Should we assume that His standard changed and He is now happy with people eating unclean animals? Although I see the concept of clean and unclean discussed at length in OT and NT, I've never found anywhere that it says He's now fine with us eating unclean animals.

What is said is that He made the unclean clean. Again it might seem like a minor distinction to some, but it's pretty pertinent if you really think about it. If that actually means we can eat animals now, that we couldn't before - it's not because the law was overturned, tossed out, discarded. It's not because God's standard changed or because His approach to people is inconsistent. It's because there's no longer anything unclean to eat!

As for the "apparent" conflict between my "keeping" the food laws but not being "bound" to them - I'll try to explain it better. I don't refrain from pig and shellfish because they're "unclean". For the most part I recognise the whole OT expression of "clean" and "unclean" to be symbols/shadows of the greater truth that is addressed in Christ. If I was certain that pig and shellfish were unclean AND that keeping the law was how we attained salvation, then I'd certainly keep them as a matter of law. Now I do believe God's standard remains. I believe we aren't to mix with the profane and I believe we aren't to become unclean. I just see the OT expression of that as redundant now.

Rather, I recognise that the animals God had previously defined as "unclean" were also unhealthy. If you investigate the matter further it really is incredible. Although we may be "allowed" to eat the and although we are making them healthier to eat through careful breeding and cooking, the things that make them unhealthy also still remain. By avoiding these foods, I'm not attempting to keep a law as such, but recognising God's infinite wisdom in establishing these animals as the expression of unclean. I don't have to be religious in my application of avoiding those foods but I recognise it makes sense to. As such, I can comfortably relax my restraint when I feel the better good would be to eat them than to refrain.

My keeping the Sabbath "generally" is along similar lines. It's not that I've determined that relaxing from Friday night to Saturday night is a necessary expression of law that I can treat with as much or as little respect as I want. Rather, I recognise God's wisdom in utilising that expression for the greater truth. I don't "keep" it according to the Jewish requirements. I don't need to keep it and I can choose not to for the greater good, but I recognise the wisdom in resting one day a week and in consciously setting aside time for God.

Peace

 

[Loveaboveall]

If the question is whether or not God has changed His law, I have an analogy that may help.

Loveaboveall wrote:

Instead, recognize that instead of God changing His law, He changes us so that we may keep His law. Will it ever be okay to murder, steal , lie etc? of course not.

It is possible to have some of the same provisions in different laws.

Say for instance the state we live in has a 70 mph speed limit. And you don't want to break the law so you drive less than 70 miles per hour. When you cross the state line and enter another state, is it ok to drive 90 miles an hour then? NO, because the neighboring state also has a 70mph speed limit. Just because the old law has been changed, or maybe better to say replaced, doesn't mean that some of the same restrictions don't still apply.

If we examine the old and new law in this light, we were told specifically not to murder, steal and lie in the new law, so it shouldn't be viewed as an 'eternal' carryover from the old law.

Just a thought. Not nearly as scholarly as the other posts, but I hope you can see my point.

Annie

I have thought much today about what you have said re: your illustration. I have a couple questions...

We are speaking of the law that defines sin, correct?

If sin is "missing the mark" as Splayd commented, which I think is a good description of sin. If it is missing the mark of righteousness that IS God. How can this definition change? How can something be "missing the mark" ala unrighteous at one point in time, but then be perfectly okay at a later time? Did Jesus change the definition of righteousness? Can God change His character to allow something that was unrighteous to be righteous?

Splayd also made another good point that relates to your illustration....

"Consider whether murder is wrong just because God said it was OR whether He said it was wrong because it is."

If Splayd is correct, which is my opinion, then how can this change, how can something that is inherently wrong become right?

I have heard this idea that unless it is "restated" in the new testament then it we do not have to follow it. Wouldn't it be more proper instead to say... unless God has specifically changed it, we should still follow it. A perfect illustration: The Lord's supper... The Jews were commanded to keep Passover as a Holy feast. Jesus used the last passover, upper room meal, to explain to the disciples that the ceremonial laws that all pointed to Him were no longer to be kept because they were realized in Him. Instead they were to partake of the passover meal in remembrance of Him.

Thus we have Jesus giving us a perfect example of how a law was changed by Him. Note... He never changed any precept in the "Moral law" He may have brought out the true meaning but never said any of the "Moral law" was not necessary to keep. Instead He demonstrated the proper way to keep it, with love!

In reality, is there anything in the "Moral, Law of God" that has not been restated in the new testament?

 

[Spiritofprophecy]

Greetings in the name of Jesus:

To the O.P. Hebrews is like all scriptures. The Key is Jesus and the faith therein.

Jewish understanding of doctrines is righteous. and of Old testament; is all right when asked? Jesus said, " every Jot and tittle" Jesus came not to change or break the law, but to fulfill it.

Only the levitical law is changed to Grace and forgiveness. Every thing else still applies.

But as to learning Hebrew and Jewish doctrines and precepts; is very righteous and what is sorely lacking in grafted and wild grapes Christians today. We christians are separated from our true Godly roots of Judaism.

And the Kingdom to come, shall be a strongly Jewish form of Christianity. God is a Jew, Jesus.

I pray my words do not offend any one.
May God bless C.F. and all who use it.

 

[- DRA -]

The example of eating unclean animals is a great one. Should we assume that His standard changed and He is now happy with people eating unclean animals? Although I see the concept of clean and unclean discussed at length in OT and NT, I've never found anywhere that it says He's now fine with us eating unclean animals.

What is said is that He made the unclean clean. Again it might seem like a minor distinction to some, but it's pretty pertinent if you really think about it. If that actually means we can eat animals now, that we couldn't before - it's not because the law was overturned, tossed out, discarded. It's not because God's standard changed or because His approach to people is inconsistent. It's because there's no longer anything unclean to eat!

I believe you have drawn a conclusion that contradicts with Hebrews 7:12, which says, "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." As you and I have discussed previously, the change in priesthood is a reference to Jesus being a priest after the order of Melchizedek versus a Levitical priest. The change in priesthood, according to the writer of Hebrews, also resulted in a change in law. The change in law was necessary because the priesthood and law of Moses were coupled or linked together. Thus, when Jesus became a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the law of Moses ended. It was replaced with the law (gospel) of Christ.

 

[Loveaboveall]

I believe you have drawn a conclusion that contradicts with Hebrews 7:12, which says, "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." As you and I have discussed previously, the change in priesthood is a reference to Jesus being a priest after the order of Melchizedek versus a Levitical priest. The change in priesthood, according to the writer of Hebrews, also resulted in a change in law. The change in law was necessary because the priesthood and law of Moses were coupled or linked together. Thus, when Jesus became a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the law of Moses ended. It was replaced with the law (gospel) of Christ.

DRA, What law is spoken of in Hebrews 7:12? The law of the priesthood. So anything that relates to the priesthood was changed, is that simple enough? All the ceremonies, sacrifices, feast days that the priest officiated in are now done in heaven by Christ for us! so anything that pertains to this priesthood is no longer needed today. But for Christ to be our High Priest, the law that says He would have to be out of the tribe of Levi must be changed. He became our High Priest and performs these services for us in heaven. We no longer offer a sacrifice, Jesus does that for us. That is the only law that was "Changed"! The law that defines sin was not changed. The law that says we should not partake of that which is unclean was not changed.

What splayd said, in know way contradicts this point.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

I believe you have drawn a conclusion that contradicts with Hebrews 7:12, which says, "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." As you and I have discussed previously, the change in priesthood is a reference to Jesus being a priest after the order of Melchizedek versus a Levitical priest. The change in priesthood, according to the writer of Hebrews, also resulted in a change in law. The change in law was necessary because the priesthood and law of Moses were coupled or linked together. Thus, when Jesus became a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the law of Moses ended. It was replaced with the law (gospel) of Christ.

DRA, What law is spoken of in Hebrews 7:12? The law of the priesthood. So anything that relates to the priesthood was changed, is that simple enough? All the ceremonies, sacrifices, feast days that the priest officiated in are now done in heaven by Christ for us! so anything that pertains to this priesthood is no longer needed today. But for Christ to be our High Priest, the law that says He would have to be out of the tribe of Levi must be changed. He became our High Priest and performs these services for us in heaven. We no longer offer a sacrifice, Jesus does that for us. That is the only law that was "Changed"! The law that defines sin was not changed. The law that says we should not partake of that which is unclean was not changed.

What splayd said, in know way contradicts this point.

I beg to differ.

The context of Hebrews 7:12 is making two primary points:
1.) the priesthood changed
2.) the law changed.
With those points in mind, the discussion continues in chapter 8. The covenant also changed. The covenant, as we have discussed before and agreed upon (at least, I thought we did), is that the Israelites agreed to do all that God said under the law of Moses - NOT just follow the instructions concerning the priestood. Thus, when the covenant that God made with Israel changed, the whole law changed - not just a specific part of it.

One way to settle this. This very issue came up in Acts 15. What was the conclusion? What requirements were the Gentiles required to keep from the law of Moses?

Answer: NONE! Once again, NONE! The few basic instructions given to the Gentiles all predated the law of Moses. So, there's our answer in black and white.

As previously discussed several times, Bible harmony exists when the truth is reached. When passages contradict each other, something is amiss i.e. Matt. 4:5-7.

 

[- DRA -]

Greetings in the name of Jesus:

To the O.P. Hebrews is like all scriptures. The Key is Jesus and the faith therein.

Jewish understanding of doctrines is righteous. and of Old testament; is all right when asked? Jesus said, " every Jot and tittle" Jesus came not to change or break the law, but to fulfill it.

Only the levitical law is changed to Grace and forgiveness. Every thing else still applies.

But as to learning Hebrew and Jewish doctrines and precepts; is very righteous and what is sorely lacking in grafted and wild grapes Christians today. We christians are separated from our true Godly roots of Judaism.

And the Kingdom to come, shall be a strongly Jewish form of Christianity. God is a Jew, Jesus.

I pray my words do not offend any one.
May God bless C.F. and all who use it.

Romans 15:4 says, "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope" (NKJV).

I think a key word in this passage is "learning." The O.T. writings are for "learning." Not law. 1 Cor. 10:1-12 is an example of "learning" that can be obtained from the things written aforetime.

And,

Colossians 1:13 says, "He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love."

The kingdom has been in existence since the first century. People become a part of it when they are delivered from darkness (the bondage of sin). Thus, when sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ, people become a part of God's kingdom. Consider Acts 2:38,41,47. Sins were forgiven by those who obeyed God. And, the Lord added them to the church - the called out of God. Thus, they were translated from the darkness into God's kingdom.

See also Revelation 1:9. John was in the kingdom. The kingdom had to be in existence for John to be in it, right?

 

[Splayd]

I beg to differ.

The context of Hebrews 7:12 is making two primary points:
1.) the priesthood changed
2.) the law changed.
With those points in mind, the discussion continues in chapter 8. The covenant also changed. The covenant, as we have discussed before and agreed upon (at least, I thought we did), is that the Israelites agreed to do all that God said under the law of Moses - NOT just follow the instructions concerning the priestood.

Sure. No issues here really.

Thus, when the covenant that God made with Israel changed, the whole law changed - not just a specific part of it.

Thus? Really? That's the necessary and logical conclusion? I disagree.

You guys take your Constitution and Bill of Rights pretty seriously right? If the law changes (which it does very often) does that mean that everything gets scrapped and started from scratch or does it simply mean that the law accomodates a change of details in some area?

Was the law affected by the change in Priesthood? Of course it was. We're told of several ways it was changed. Does it necessarily mean the whole lot was scrapped and started anew? No. I can't even begin to imagine why it would be unless God got it wrong the first time and that certainly didn't happen.

Not sure how useful the analogy will be, but in Australia we go onto a Provisional Licence when we pass a driving test. It's essentially an agreement (covenant) with the government. We agree to drive at a slower speed and follow all the road rules perfectly for a year (or whatever it is now). We have a very limited number of "demerit points" and if we lose them we lose our licence.

After that time, if there are no problems, we're offered a new agreement. We can now drive faster and we have more demerit points. For us, there is a change of agreement and (on a personal level) a change of law... BUT only as it pertains to those details. The usual road rules still apply. We're not suddenly under a whole new set. Green lights still mean go. We still have to drive on the same side of the road etc... Likewise the Provisional rules aren't scrapped just because they no longer apply to us. They're just obselete (on a personal level).

All of this isn't so different. The old is rendered obsolete by the new because the new encompasses so much more and it's terms are so much better. It doesn't make the "old covenant" a bad thing or get rid of it outright. The law also changed, but only the details and only inasmuch as it accomodated a changed circumstances as a direct result of the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Apply your conclusion to any other matter of law today and the whole thing's a mess. I don't see that applying it to God's law works any better.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Thus, when the covenant that God made with Israel changed, the whole law changed - not just a specific part of it.

Thus? Really? That's the necessary and logical conclusion? I disagree.

You guys take your Constitution and Bill of Rights pretty seriously right? If the law changes (which it does very often) does that mean that everything gets scrapped and started from scratch or does it simply mean that the law accomodates a change of details in some area?

Was the law affected by the change in Priesthood? Of course it was. We're told of several ways it was changed. Does it necessarily mean the whole lot was scrapped and started anew? No. I can't even begin to imagine why it would be unless God got it wrong the first time and that certainly didn't happen.

Not sure how useful the analogy will be, but in Australia we go onto a Provisional Licence when we pass a driving test. It's essentially an agreement (covenant) with the government. We agree to drive at a slower speed and follow all the road rules perfectly for a year (or whatever it is now). We have a very limited number of "demerit points" and if we lose them we lose our licence.

After that time, if there are no problems, we're offered a new agreement. We can now drive faster and we have more demerit points. For us, there is a change of agreement and (on a personal level) a change of law... BUT only as it pertains to those details. The usual road rules still apply. We're not suddenly under a whole new set. Green lights still mean go. We still have to drive on the same side of the road etc... Likewise the Provisional rules aren't scrapped just because they no longer apply to us. They're just obselete (on a personal level).

All of this isn't so different. The old is rendered obsolete by the new because the new encompasses so much more and it's terms are so much better. It doesn't make the "old covenant" a bad thing or get rid of it outright. The law also changed, but only the details and only inasmuch as it accomodated a changed circumstances as a direct result of the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Apply your conclusion to any other matter of law today and the whole thing's a mess. I don't see that applying it to God's law works any better.

Acts 15. Please harmonize your understanding with the issue dealt with there and the conclusion drawn. Do they match?

 

[Splayd]

Acts 15. Please harmonize your understanding with the issue dealt with there and the conclusion drawn. Do they match?

Absolutely! Just before I get into the chapter, could you clarify something about your understanding for me, so I know how much to explain?

Do you consider the ruling in Acts 15:20 to be binding on Christians today?

Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

ie: Are we required to abstain from those things as a matter of "NT law"?

Thanks

 

[JDIBe]

Absolutely! Just before I get into the chapter, could you clarify something about your understanding for me, so I know how much to explain?

Do you consider the ruling in Acts 15:20 to be binding on Christians today?
ie: Are we required to abstain from those things as a matter of "NT law"?

Thanks

Splayd,

No we are not required to abstain from those things (except sexual immorality, of course). The Gentiles were asked to do so to keep from offending the Jewish christians. This was the crux of the problem in Acts 15. This interpretation fits perfectly with what Paul says in

Rom 14:14-15
(14) I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
(15) For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.

If you feel this passage points to observation of unclean vs. clean I would ask you and Loveaboveall
how you would reconcile that interpretation with the following Scriptures: (particularly the one in Mark....)

Mar 7:18-23
(18) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him;
(19) because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.
(20) And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.
(21) For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
(22) covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness:
(23) all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man.

Rom 14:14-20
(14) I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
(15) For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.
(16) Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
(17) for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
(18) For he that herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing to God, and approved of men.
(19) So then let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another.
(20) Overthrow not for meat's sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean; howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

Another question for you two: Are we under this law from the Old Testament today?

Lev 15:19-23
(19) And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
(20) And everything that she lieth upon in her impurity shall be unclean: everything also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
(21) And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
(22) And whosoever toucheth anything that she sitteth upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
(23) And if it be on the bed, or on anything whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.

 

[JDIBe]

If the question is whether or not God has changed His law, I have an analogy that may help.

Loveaboveall wrote:

Instead, recognize that instead of God changing His law, He changes us so that we may keep His law. Will it ever be okay to murder, steal , lie etc? of course not.

It is possible to have some of the same provisions in different laws.

Say for instance the state we live in has a 70 mph speed limit. And you don't want to break the law so you drive less than 70 miles per hour. When you cross the state line and enter another state, is it ok to drive 90 miles an hour then? NO, because the neighboring state also has a 70mph speed limit. Just because the old law has been changed, or maybe better to say replaced, doesn't mean that some of the same restrictions don't still apply.

If we examine the old and new law in this light, we were told specifically not to murder, steal and lie in the new law, so it shouldn't be viewed as an 'eternal' carryover from the old law.

Just a thought. Not nearly as scholarly as the other posts, but I hope you can see my point.

Annie

Annie, an excellent point! Let me carry your analogy a little further... If the speed limits in Nevada and California are the same and one was caught speeding in Nevada....

Would one be breaking and therefore prosecuted, under Nevada Law or California Law? Is Nevada law simply an extention of California law?

 

[Splayd]

Hey JDIBe

Great to see you back here. I hope your break was good.

No we are not required to abstain from those things (except sexual immorality, of course). The Gentiles were asked to do so to keep from offending the Jewish christians. This was the crux of the problem in Acts 15.

I basically agree. You got a little ahead of yourself with the rest of the post, but that's inevitable when people aren't entirely clear of each other's perspective.

Now that we're clear on that, I'll start putting a commentary together on the chapter. Just as an intersting sidenote: IF there was such a thing as "NT law" AND it was recorded anywhere... this chapter would be the most obvious example I can think of to illustrate it being implemented. It's obviously a discussion about law. The "who's who" of the NT got together and made a "ruling". They were led by the Holy Spirit. It's clear. It's concise. It's all there. If anyone wanted to make a case for NT law, this would be the obvious place to start... BUT noone ever does. You don't. I don't. It simply isn't an example of NT law being introduced.

Meanwhile, those who do promote "NT law" will point to much, much, much more obscure passages for their purposes. There's the commentary by Jesus, where He says He isn't changing the law. That's one example of NT law apparently. There's the passing mentions to OT laws, where they're treated as if they're common knowledge (as OT law was) and they're considered to be NT laws just because they're mentioned in the NT. There's all of these sorts of things which apparently are "NT law" BUT the one obvious example that might actually demonstrate NT law being initiated (if there were such a thing) isn't.

Now I agree that it isn't an example of "NT law" being initiated. But then again I don't see anywhere that a whole new set of laws was put in place.

Anyway, I'll get to work on the commentary.

Peace

 

[Splayd]

Alright, first things first.

The events of Acts 15 are precipitated by the teaching of some men from Judea. Their message "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." prompted Paul to take action and the council was held.

At this point it's probably worth considering exactly what circumcision is. I assume we all know it's the removal of a male's foreskin. It's more than that though - it was the sign of the covenant between Abraham and God: Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
It was to be kept by Abraham and all his descendants, as well as any others that would be a part of the nation of Israel. Gen 17:12b,13 Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
The men in Acts 15 were saying it was a Mosaic custom and to some extent they were right. The law given to Moses did indeed repeat the need for circumcision Lev 12:1,3 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying... And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

But it's important to recognise that the rite of circumcision was first given to Abraham and his descendants. Moses, as a descendant of Abraham necessarily had to keep it as a condition of the Abrahamic covenant. As did the rest of the Israelites who received the law along with Moses.

A few principals are demonstrated there.
1) God doesn't undo old covenants when He makes new ones. The Abrahamic covenant was incorporated in the Mosaic.
2) "Everlasting" really means everlasting. God's word is eternal. He keeps His promises.
3) Covenants are sealed with a sign. This physical race had a physical sign in circumcison.
4) Covenants are sealed with blood. Circumcision, sacrifices, Jesus death.

Now, it's also worth considering the terms of those covenant again and the implications.

The "covenant of circumcision" was made with Abraham (Acts 7:8) and had the following promises (Genesis 17:4-14):
1. Abraham's line will be fruitful.
2. They will become nations.
3. They will produce kings.
4. God will be their God.
5. They will have all of the land of Canaan.
6. It will be a perpetual covenant with future generations.
7. It will be an eternal covenant.

It also had the following conditions:
1.God will be their God.
2. All males will get circumcised.
3. Infants will be circumcised on the 8th day.
4. Those living amongst them will be circumcised.
5. They will keep the covenant.
6. Anyone who doesn't will be cut off from the rest.

It was a physical covenant with a physical people with physical promises and a physical sign. It wasn't something that God necessarily wanted for everyone. Rather, it was a sign that one was a descendant of Abraham or living amongst them as one under the covenant.

For the Israelites who received the Mosaic covenant, it was necessarily a point of law because they were future generations of Abraham. Like the Abrahamic covenant before it, it also necessarily required that those living amongst them be circumcised as a matter of law.

This brings us to consider the Mosaic covenant in more detail and how it pertains to the matter. I'll endeavour to do that when I next post here. With that understanding established I'll continue with our study of Acts 15.

Peace

 

[JDIBe]

Alright, first things first.

The events of Acts 15 are precipitated by the teaching of some men from Judea. Their message "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." prompted Paul to take action and the council was held.

Splayd, it is good to be back. I look forward to hearing your discussion of Acts 15.

One point of contention with what you have said so far for future reference and discussion.....
From what I see, circumcision was certainly on the list as you say, but it was not not the only thing these teachers were advocating...

Acts 15:5
(5) But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.

It might be useful to consider verse 10 along with 5 to get a clearer picture of what is going on here.

But please continue. I'll sit quietly and listen for a while. (although I guess I'm not starting out well here, am I?)

 

[Splayd]

Splayd, it is good to be back. I look forward to hearing your discussion of Acts 15.

One point of contention with what you have said so far for future reference and discussion.....
From what I see, circumcision was certainly on the list as you say, but it was not not the only thing these teachers were advocating...

Acts 15:5
(5) But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.

It might be useful to consider verse 10 along with 5 to get a clearer picture of what is going on here.

But please continue. I'll sit quietly and listen for a while. (although I guess I'm not starting out well here, am I?)

Actually, we don't know whether the teachers that started the whole thing and the Pharisees that arose from the assembly are the one and the same or that their teachings were identical. What we know with certainty is that the men that got the ball rolling were teaching circumcision and that some Phasisaic believers were saying they had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

Of course it's possible that they were the same people. It's even more likely that they were different individuals who held the same beliefs, but we don't really even know that. At any rate, it wasn't an oversight on my part. We're just not up to them yet. Both arguments are presented in the chapter and addressed by the council at the same time.

I'm hoping to provide some better background to "the law of Moses" in my brief discussion of the Mosaic covenant in the next post.

Peace

 

[Loveaboveall]

I look forward to your next post splayd:

I do have a couple more questions to the forumites...

1) What was the "law" that the apostles said, "[Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:" vs 24.

Was this the law that defines sin? If the gentiles were not bound to keep the law that defines sin, then it was of no matter for them to murder, steal, dishonor their parents, take the name of the Lord in vain, etc.? Do you really believe this was the law that the apostles were meaning when they said they had not commanded them to keep it? Was this the only "law" they were bound to keep. If they did not break these four commands then they would not have sin in their lives? Is this right?

2) What is meant by vs 21? "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

What is the reason for saying this here? I am not quite sure myself but I can draw some conclusions, but I would like to here others thoughts before I speak mine.

3)I believe Splayd refered to this thought in a previous post... I think... Why did the apostles not command the "new law" that is spoken of so often. The "law of Christ" or the "new law of the new covenant"? This would have been a perfect time to require the gentiles to "love as I have loved you"! But they gave specific commands regarding the customs of the "law of Moses". Can someone give me some logical reasoning for this?

4) The commands regarding eating meat offered to idols seems almost in complete contradiction to what Paul says in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8. Is it okay or is it not? And why does Paul say that those who believe it is not are "weak" in the faith?

Just some thoughts as we study further into Acts 15.

 

[JDIBe]

I do have a couple more questions to the forumites...

1) What was the "law" that the apostles said, "[Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:" vs 24.

I assume the same law in vs. 5.

Was this the law that defines sin? If the gentiles were not bound to keep the law that defines sin, then it was of no matter for them to murder, steal, dishonor their parents, take the name of the Lord in vain, etc.? Do you really believe this was the law that the apostles were meaning when they said they had not commanded them to keep it? Was this the only "law" they were bound to keep. If they did not break these four commands then they would not have sin in their lives? Is this right?

Nope. The Gentiles were under the moral law. Still sin.

2) What is meant by vs 21? "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

What is the reason for saying this here? I am not quite sure myself but I can draw some conclusions, but I would like to here others thoughts before I speak mine.

3)I believe Splayd refered to this thought in a previous post... I think... Why did the apostles not command the "new law" that is spoken of so often. The "law of Christ" or the "new law of the new covenant"? This would have been a perfect time to require the gentiles to "love as I have loved you"! But they gave specific commands regarding the customs of the "law of Moses". Can someone give me some logical reasoning for this?

4) The commands regarding eating meat offered to idols seems almost in complete contradiction to what Paul says in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8. Is it okay or is it not? And why does Paul say that those who believe it is not are "weak" in the faith?

Just some thoughts as we study further into Acts 15.

I think if you look at post #112, I attempt to answer your questions. BTW, any comments on Mark 7:19 while we wait for Splayd?

 

[Splayd]

Alright, let's continue:

It should already be apparent why circumcision would be an issue of contention, whether or not Christians were supposed to keep the OT law. Regardless, I'll come back to it to tie it all together in a little while.

For now, let's move on to consider the other issue up for contention:
Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."
It's worth considering what "the law of Moses" is. Most of us reading this passage with our 21st Century Western Christian mindset would think it's pretty obvious: "the law of Moses" is the OT, the Pentateuch, those laws given to Moses and recorded in scripture. Case closed, let's move on? Not quite.

It's worth noting who is using the phrase here and what it meant to them at that time. If you ask an observant Jew today if they follow "the law of Moses", they'll affirm that they do. They may go on to explain how they use different saucepans to prepare meat dishes and dairy dishes etc... The thing is - Scripture never tells us to do many of these things. Their understanding of "the law of Moses" and ours are two completely different things. Now ask your Jewish friend if they study the scriptures very often and you'll likely find that they don't. See Jews believe that "the law of Moses" is in two parts: written law and oral law. All we share in common is the written law, so when we hear references to law, law of Moses etc... we think "written law". When they hear or use those terms, they think both, but more explicitely "oral". It's prevalent in their practice. While Judaism today is different than Judaism in Jesus time, this thinking and teaching was apparent among... the Pharisees.

At the time of the writing of Acts there were several sects within Judaism. Sadduccees disagreed with the Pharisees on the matter of oral law. We're a little like the Christian version of them inasmuch as they were conservative fundamentalists. They refused to consider any practice that wasn't explicitely stated in scripture and were advocators of free will. The down side was that in their attempt to ignore extra-biblical influences, they developed their own unique, yet very strict approach to interpreting scripture which led them into error and the inability to recognise things like resurrection of the dead and a life hereafter. As such, the Sadduccees are consistently referred to in a negative light throughout the NT.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, were perhaps more like the Catholics today. They were huge advocators for "Tradition". So much so, that they insisted their traditions were given to Moses by God and passed down faithfully ever since. To them - there was no seperating "written" and "oral" law. They were two sides of the same coin. The "law of Moses" is both. The written was to be read through the lense of tradition if it was to be properly understood and applied. As it turns out, the Pharisees were right about a lot of doctrine. The NT affirms much of what they taught... BUT also brings harsh rebuke for their insistence that "oral law" = "God's law". Consider the account in Matthew 15 where the Pharisees take exception with Jesus' disciples not washing their hands (oral law, not written). In His response, Jesus mentions that they "teach as doctrine, the commandments of men." Further consider this Jewish account about famous Pharisaic Rabi's immediately prior to Jesus' time:

A gentile approached Shammai and said that he wanted to convert to Judaism on condition that he would accept only the Written Law.
Shammai, realizing that the Gentile was mocking him, chased him away.
The Gentile then went to Hillel with the same condition. The first day, Hillel taught him alef, bais, gimel, dalet. The second day, he began by calling the same characters tav, shin, raish, kuf. The Gentile objected, "But didn't you tell me yesterday that these were alef, bais, gimel, dalet?" Hillel responded, "You see that even the names and sounds of the letters can only be understood by an oral teaching. How much more must the Torah itself be understood only through the Oral Law." The Gentile then began studying completely and
honestly.

Given that this was the thinking of the Pharisees prior to Jesus and that it was the Pharisaic tradition that was recorded as the Talmud which is the foundation for Judaism henceforth, it should be apparent that it was also the thinking of the Pharisees at the time of the council in Acts 15. For a Pharisee, the phrase "keep the law of Moses" really equated to "keep the oral law (Pharasaic tradition)".

That alone offers grounds for rejection of their statement without dismissing the written law. Nonetheless there is still grounds for rejecting their appeal even it if might refer strictly to the written law. We'll consider the written law in more detail shortly as well as the Jewish expectations of Gentiles in regards to law, before finally considering the whole chapter within the context of the historical, cultural and political setting.

Peace