• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

GENTILES OR CHRISTIANS PRACTICING THE SABBATH ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I agree that at least this is a more consistent approach than Visionary's (albeit wrong). If the exemption was only for uncircumcised Gentiles as they could no longer be circumcised on the eigth day as per God's instruction, why was Timothy circumcised, but Titus was not? If Timothy could still be circumcised beyond the eigth day to correct what was not done then, why could this not be done also for all the Gentiles (such as Titus)?

This is a good point - there was no commandment from God in OT or NT that gentiles must be circumcised to worship God or to be considered children of God. In fact if you look in Acts 13 even the NON Christian Jews knew this because you have gentiles in the synagogues worshiping God in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18.

Paul is very proud of Titus in Galatians for NOT being circumcised

1 Cor 7
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

in Christ,

Bob
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Joshua_5
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Titus, however, was in Jerusalem among fellow believers and the Apostles. Had the disciples compelled Titus to be circumcised at the request of the "false brethren" of Galatians 2:4, .

Titus merely "visited Jerusalem" with Paul - it is not at all certain that even non-Christian Jews insisted that gentiles who merely visited Jerusalem all be circumcised. And I think we all agree on that point. It was an extremist view of "certain" Christian Jews that all Christian gentiles must be circumcised. Even the non-Christian Jews did not have that doctrine about God-fearing gentiles.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
And continuing...
Question: Was the Sabbath given to the Israelites?
Answer: God made the Sabbath for mankind Mark 2:27 Isaiah 66:23
Question: When did He give it to man?
Answer: At creation
Question: Well how did God give it to the Israelite's if He'd already given it at creation? (Ezekiel 20:12)

1. The Israel was in fact - part of mankind.
2. It is GOD who says the Sabbath was made for mankind -- your argument is with God.
3. "SIN is transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 - "ALL have SINNED" Romans 3:23 "the entire WORLD is held accountable under the LAW before God - every mouth shut" Romans 3:19-21.

Your argument is with God when you say that since believers obey the Commandments of God - including the Sabbath - this cannot distinguish the believers from the unbelievers at the time of Ezek 20.

Isaiah 56:1-8 GENTILEs specifically blessed for keeping the Bible Sabbath.

Your own pro-sunday scholars AFFIRM that ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments are for ALL Mankind.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
71
NC
Visit site
✟138,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
This is a good point - there was no commandment from God in OT or NT that gentiles must be circumcised to worship God or to be considered children of God. In fact if you look in Acts 13 even the NON Christian Jews knew this because you have gentiles in the synagogues worshiping God in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18.

Paul is very proud of Titus in Galatians for NOT being circumcised

1 Cor 7
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

in Christ,

Bob
Once an uncircumcised Gentile has been called, he can no longer obey the Law of Moses which specifically commands circumcision to be done on the 8th day (Leviticus 12:3). He is therefore exempt. However, he is not exempt from having his son circumcised as per the command. This is "the keeping of the commandments of God".
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Once an uncircumcised Gentile has been called, he can no longer obey the Law of Moses which specifically commands circumcision to be done on the 8th day (Leviticus 12:3). He is therefore exempt. However, he is not exempt from having his son circumcised as per the command. This is "the keeping of the commandments of God".

1. That is an assumption - without one example of that in NT or OT. it is at best, inference.

2. Babies are not born circumcised so the 1 Cor 7 command would not require that they be circumcised if their father was not or if they were not considered already to be Jewish by mater lineal rules.

3. The TEN Commandments were unique in that they were kept inside the ark - the rest of scripture was not. In Eph 6:2 we are told that the 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" -- that can only be true of the TEN. So we know that there are examples where Paul's use of the term "Commandments of God" are first and foremost considered to be the TEN. A likely definition in 1 Cor 7 "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the Commandments of God." Though it is more likely that this is a contrast between moral law that defines sin -- vs ceremonial law that does not.

4. Paul's statement in Galatians about Titus does not leave a lot of room for what you are suggesting. AT the very least he would need to limit that statement by "but Titus is encouraged to circumcise his children" or something of the sort. You cannot have the negative form as the only form in print - with the positive instruction you have suggested merely left to the imagination.

Gal 2
2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul points out that Titus is not compelled "though he was a Greek" he does not say "because he was not an infant". Paul does not indicate that the issue is whether or not someone is an infant. But rather - whether or not someone is Jew or gentile.

I am not in a position to argue against gentiles being circumcised as a good practice for health reasons. But Paul is very specific about the fact that there is an extreme practice in place uniquely among christian jews - not even found among non-christian jews - trying to get gentiles circumcised.

5. Notice that in Acts 21 Paul is falsely accused of telling Jews not to circumcise their children. He is not accused of telling gentiles not to circumcise their children. It is very very doubtful that his detractors imagined he was insisting that gentile children be circumcised - but not Jewish children. I think this is very problematic for the suggestion you are making especially given that you have not one example of what you propose in either OT or NT.

In Acts 21 when contrasting this accusation against Paul with what the Acts 15 council commanded -- James says this .

20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Since James specifically mentions "not to circumcise their children" - the very subject you are addressing - he would need to also say "but concerning gentiles we did tell them also to circumcise their children" since it is certain that gentile Christians were not going to do that apart from some command.

James does not say that Paul is accused of teaching Jews to dishonor parents, or break the Sabbath, or take God's name in vain.. or to break any of the TEN Commandments. The "solution" James gives is not "show everyone that you honor your parents and that will solve the problem" or "show everyone that you keep the Bible Sabbath as given by God". He specifically points to circumcision and the ceremonial system as it pertains to Jews - as being that which Paul is accused.

What is more Paul is only accused of telling Jews outside of Israel - in the lands of the gentiles --- to ignore what the Bible says in that area.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joshua_5
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
71
NC
Visit site
✟138,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
1. That is an assumption - without one example of that in NT or OT.
My example is addressed in point #5

2. Babies are not born circumcised so the 1 Cor 7 command would not require that they be circumcised - it would not forbid it - but neither does it require it.
Babies are not called.

3. The TEN Commandments were unique in that they were kept inside the ark - the rest of scripture was not. In Eph 6:2 we are told that the 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" -- that can only be true of the TEN. So we know that there are examples where the "Commandments" of God are first and foremost considered to be the TEN when Paul references them.
The two greatest are foremost. The Ten are next in importance, but that does not exclude obedience to other commandments.

4. Paul's statement in Galatians about Titus does not leave a lot of room for what you are suggesting. AT the very least he would need to limit that statement by "but Titus is encouraged to circumcise his children" or something of the sort. You cannot have the negative form as the only form in print - with the positive instruction you have suggested merely left to the imagination.
The issue was whether or not Titus needed to be circumcised. No need to mention his son if he even had one.

I am not in a position to argue against gentiles being circumcised as a good practice for health reasons. But Paul is very specific about the fact that there is an extreme practice in place uniquely among christian jews - not even found among non-christian jews - trying to get gentiles circumcised.
When you say "christian jews", do you mean the false brethren of Galatians 2:4 and/or those in Galatians 5 that were seeking to be justified by the Law through circumcision?

5. Notice that in Acts 21 Paul is falsely accused of telling Jews not to circumcise their children. He is not accused of telling gentiles not to circumcise their children. It is very very doubtful that his detractors imagined he was insisting the gentile children be circumcised - but not Jewish children. I think this is very problematic for the suggestion you are making.
Is there one law for Jewish believers and one for Gentile believers? No. What Yahweh commands of Jews, He commands of Gentiles. We all have the same Torah written on our hearts.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
4. Paul's statement in Galatians about Titus does not leave a lot of room for what you are suggesting. AT the very least he would need to limit that statement by "but Titus is encouraged to circumcise his children" or something of the sort. You cannot have the negative form as the only form in print - with the positive instruction you have suggested merely left to inference and imagination without one example of it in either OT or NT.

Gal 2
2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul points out that Titus is not compelled "though he was a Greek" he does not say "because he was not an infant". Paul does not indicate that the issue is whether or not someone is an infant. But rather - whether or not someone is Jew or gentile.

I am not in a position to argue against gentiles being circumcised as a good practice for health reasons. But Paul is very specific about the fact that there is an extreme practice in place uniquely among christian jews - not even found among non-christian jews - trying to get gentiles circumcised.

5. Notice that in Acts 21 Paul is falsely accused of telling Jews not to circumcise their children. He is not accused of telling gentiles not to circumcise their children. It is very very doubtful that his detractors imagined he was insisting that gentile children be circumcised - but not Jewish children. I think this is very problematic for the suggestion you are making especially given that you have not one example of what you propose in either OT or NT.

In Acts 21 when contrasting this accusation against Paul with what the Acts 15 council commanded -- James says this .

20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Since James specifically mentions "not to circumcise their children" - the very subject you are addressing - he would need to also say "but concerning gentiles we did tell them also to circumcise their children" since it is certain that gentile Christians were not going to do that apart from some command.

James does not say that Paul is accused of teaching Jews to dishonor parents, or break the Sabbath, or take God's name in vain.. or to break any of the TEN Commandments. The "solution" James gives is not "show everyone that you honor your parents and that will solve the problem" or "show everyone that you keep the Bible Sabbath as given by God". He specifically points to circumcision and the ceremonial system as it pertains to Jews - as being that which Paul is accused.

What is more Paul is only accused of telling Jews outside of Israel - in the lands of the gentiles --- to ignore what the Bible says in that area.

The issue was whether or not Titus needed to be circumcised. No need to mention his son if he even had one.

When you say "christian jews", do you mean the false brethren of Galatians 2:4 and/or those in Galatians 5 that were seeking to be justified by the Law through circumcision?

Is there one law for Jewish believers and one for Gentile believers? No. What Yahweh commands of Jews, He commands of Gentiles. We all have the same Torah written on our hearts.

When it comes to moral law and civil law in Israel there were not two.

But when it comes to ceremonial law - there is one rule for Levites and priests and another for those who are not.

There is one rule for gentiles and one for Jews in the case of ceremonial laws because in those cases the one in violation is cut off from his relatives, which does not even apply to a believing gentile whose relatives would be just fine with him not being circumcised. And in the case of Timothy we have someone who is attending Synagogue all his life without any questions at all from even the non-Christian Jews.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joshua_5
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
71
NC
Visit site
✟138,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
4. Paul's statement in Galatians about Titus does not leave a lot of room for what you are suggesting. AT the very least he would need to limit that statement by "but Titus is encouraged to circumcise his children" or something of the sort. You cannot have the negative form as the only form in print - with the positive instruction you have suggested merely left to the imagination.

Gal 2
2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul points out that Titus is not compelled "though he was a Greek" he does not say "because he was not an infant". Paul does not indicate that the issue is whether or not someone is an infant. But rather - whether or not someone is Jew or gentile.

I am not in a position to argue against gentiles being circumcised as a good practice for health reasons. But Paul is very specific about the fact that there is an extreme practice in place uniquely among christian jews - not even found among non-christian jews - trying to get gentiles circumcised.

5. Notice that in Acts 21 Paul is falsely accused of telling Jews not to circumcise their children. He is not accused of telling gentiles not to circumcise their children. It is very very doubtful that his detractors imagined he was insisting that gentile children be circumcised - but not Jewish children. I think this is very problematic for the suggestion you are making.

In Acts 21 when contrasting this accusation against Paul with what the Acts 15 council commanded -- James says this .

20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Since James specifically mentions "not to circumcise their children" - the very subject you are addressing - he would need to also say "but concerning gentiles we did tell them also to circumcise their children" since it is certain that gentile Christians were not going to do that apart from some command.
Your whole argument is founded upon the assumption of what you think they should have said. The fact is, Paul disproved the false accusations that he was teaching the Jews to not circumcise their children. By joining those who took the vow, he showed the Jewish believers that they should continue circumcising their children.

James does not say that Paul is accused of teaching Jews to dishonor parents, or break the Sabbath, or take God's name in vain.. or to break any of the TEN Commandments. The "solution" James gives is not "show everyone that you honor your parents and that will solve the problem" or "show everyone that you keep the Bible Sabbath as given by God". He specifically points to circumcision and the ceremonial system as it pertains to Jews - as being that which Paul is accused.
Which just goes to show that the false accusers did NOT understand Paul's teaching on circumcision and the Law of Moses.

What is more Paul is only accused of telling Jews outside of Israel - in the lands of the gentiles --- to ignore what the Bible says in that area.
Irrelevant. The truth against the false accusations stands for all Jewish believers wherever they live.

When it comes to moral law there are not two.

But when it comes to ceremonial law - there is one rule for Levites and priests and another for those who are not.

There is one rule for gentiles and one for Jews in the case of ceremonial laws because in those cases the one in violation is cut off from his relatives, which does not even apply to a believing gentile whose relatives would be just fine with him not being circumcised. And in the case of Timothy we have someone who is attending Synagogue all his life without any questions at all from even the non-Christian Jews.
Please show me in Scripture where the Law is divided into moral and ceremonial laws. Every law of Yahweh is a moral law.
Moral law means right actions/right living. Yahweh doesn't command unjust or wrong actions. Therefore, every law of His is moral. To break any law of His is immoral/wrong action.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
5. Notice that in Acts 21 Paul is falsely accused of telling Jews not to circumcise their children. He is not accused of telling gentiles not to circumcise their children. It is very very doubtful that his detractors imagined he was insisting that gentile children be circumcised - but not Jewish children. I think this is very problematic for the suggestion you are making especially given that you have not one example of what you propose in either OT or NT.

In Acts 21 when contrasting this accusation against Paul with what the Acts 15 council commanded -- James says this .

20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Since James specifically mentions "not to circumcise their children" - the very subject you are addressing - he would need to also say "but concerning gentiles we did tell them also to circumcise their children" since it is certain that gentile Christians were not going to do that apart from some command.

James does not say that Paul is accused of teaching Jews to dishonor parents, or break the Sabbath, or take God's name in vain.. or to break any of the TEN Commandments. The "solution" James gives is not "show everyone that you honor your parents and that will solve the problem" or "show everyone that you keep the Bible Sabbath as given by God". He specifically points to circumcision and the ceremonial system as it pertains to Jews - as being that which Paul is accused.

What is more Paul is only accused of telling Jews outside of Israel - in the lands of the gentiles --- to ignore what the Bible says in that area.

Your whole argument is founded upon the assumption of what you think they should have said.

I am stating that the point you make is from inference alone when you argue for a rule not found in either OT or NT.

And I am pointing to the "details" in Acts 21 that your argument does not survive.


Notice that in Acts 21 Paul is falsely accused of telling Jews not to circumcise their children. He is not accused of telling gentiles not to circumcise their children. It is very very doubtful that his detractors imagined he was insisting that gentile children be circumcised - but not Jewish children. I think this is very problematic for the suggestion you are making especially given that you have not one example of what you propose in either OT or NT.

You are left with the unsupportable idea that Paul was telling Jews not to circumcise their children while telling gentiles to do it. An argument that even the "false brethren" were not making, nor could this even be imagined that they would claim such a thing.

The fact is, Paul disproved the false accusations that he was teaching the Jews to not circumcise their children. By joining those who took the vow, he showed the Jewish believers that they should continue circumcising their children.

Indeed with both agree to that point. But this is not where your argument for gentiles being commanded to circumcise their children fails to survive the text.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joshua_5
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Please show me in Scripture where the Law is divided into moral and ceremonial laws.

1 Cor 7:19 is a perfect example of contrasting two groups of laws --

1 Cor 7
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

Paul does not say "whether you do or do not take God's name in vain -- does not matter.. but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God".

That simply does not work.

He is contrasting one group of laws that are ended vs one that stands.

In Hebrews 10 we are told that the ceremonial laws ended.

In Hebrews 7 we are told that the laws regarding the priesthood - ended.

Groups of laws - ended while the moral law remains.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
71
NC
Visit site
✟138,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am stating that the point you make is from inference alone when you argue for a rule not found in either OT or NT.

And I am pointing to the "details" in Acts 21 that your argument does not survive.
The "rule" is found in Leviticus 12:2-3. It is for all children of Israel. Since we are the seed/children of Abraham through Messiah, we are also the children of Isaac and Israel. We are grafted onto the natural olive tree of Israel. It is up to you to show a NT command stating we no longer need to circumcise our children.


Notice that in Acts 21 Paul is falsely accused of telling Jews not to circumcise their children. He is not accused of telling gentiles not to circumcise their children. It is very very doubtful that his detractors imagined he was insisting that gentile children be circumcised - but not Jewish children. I think this is very problematic for the suggestion you are making especially given that you have not one example of what you propose in either OT or NT.

You are left with the unsupportable idea that Paul was telling Jews not to circumcise their children while telling gentiles to do it. An argument that even the "false brethren" were not making, nor could this even be imagined that they would claim such a thing.
The false accusers who were Jews were not concerned about what Paul was telling Gentile believers. They were only concerned with what Paul was supposedly telling Jews. You read too much into the text.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
71
NC
Visit site
✟138,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
1 Cor 7:19 is a perfect example of contrasting two groups of laws --

1 Cor 7
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

Paul does not say "whether you do or do not take God's name in vain -- does not matter.. but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God".

That simply does not work.

He is contrasting one group of laws that are ended vs one that stands.

In Hebrews 10 we are told that the ceremonial laws ended.

In Hebrews 7 we are told that the laws regarding the priesthood - ended.

Groups of laws - ended while the moral law remains.
The correct translation of 1 Cor 7:19 is;

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Your translation adds "what matters is". Without the added words, circumcision IS the keeping of the commandments of God." One law.

In Hebrews 10 & 7 make no mention of "ceremonial laws". That is a man-made division.
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Site Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,978
8,072
✟542,711.44
Gender
Female
Faith
Messianic
This is a good point - there was no commandment from God in OT or NT that gentiles must be circumcised to worship God or to be considered children of God. In fact if you look in Acts 13 even the NON Christian Jews knew this because you have gentiles in the synagogues worshiping God in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18.

Paul is very proud of Titus in Galatians for NOT being circumcised

1 Cor 7
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

in Christ,

Bob
I think you are missing the argument that Paul is putting forth. In the time of the writing, the emphasis was unbalanced and Paul was trying to right it. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
1 Cor 7 (NASB)
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

The correct translation of 1 Cor 7:19 is;
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.​
Your translation adds "what matters is". Without the added words, circumcision IS the keeping of the commandments of God." One law.
In Hebrews 10 & 7 make no mention of "ceremonial laws". That is a man-made division.

Hebrews 10 says of the ceremonial "sacrifiices and offerings" - "he takes away the first to establish the second" at the cross. All ceremonies with liturgy given in the form of "sacrifices and offerings" end - unless one wants to just make stuff up for liturgy and substitute it in where the text says to offer sacrifices or offerings.

What is more "There is a change of law - where there is a change of priesthood" in Hebrews 7 - pointing to the priesthood of Christ replacing all the laws regarding the earthly priesthood of the Levites.

These are various kinds of law that end -- without also ending the moral law regarding the fact that we are not to take God's name in vain etc.

Now lets replace the 1 Cor 7 text as you suggest.

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

Becomes:

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

In that case
Both circumcision and uncircumcision are the keeping of the commandments of God or else just uncricumcsion is the keeping of the commandments of God - depending on how you place comas.

Perhaps you were suggesting that it say this -

17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is ... the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called

But in that case the statement "he is not to be circumcised" is commanding sin since only Circumcision is ... the keeping of the commandments of God.

It does appear that the NASB has this correct

1 Cor 7 (NASB)
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

NIV
18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

KJV
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God.

NKJV
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
71
NC
Visit site
✟138,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hebrews 10 says of the ceremonial "sacrifiices and offerings" - "he takes away the first to establish the second" at the cross. All ceremonies with liturgy given in the form of "sacrifices and offerings" end - unless one wants to just make stuff up for liturgy and substitute it in where the text says to offer sacrifices or offerings.

What is more "There is a change of law - where there is a change of priesthood" in Hebrews 7 - pointing to the priesthood of Christ replacing all the laws regarding the earthly priesthood of the Levites.

These are various kinds of law that end -- without also ending the moral law regarding the fact that we are not to take God's name in vain etc.
I agree (animal) sacrifices and offerings came to an end (for believers), but they are not Scripturally called "ceremonial".

The priesthood of Messiah only changed concerning the high priest. The Levitical priesthood through Zadok will minister during the millennium.

As for 1 Cor 7, I agree.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I agree (animal) sacrifices and offerings came to an end (for believers), but they are not Scripturally called "ceremonial".

The liturgy for them is ceremony - where priests offer sacrifices and offerings.

If you take away the priest, and the sacrifice and the offering --that is to say take away all the elements specified in Leviticus - the entire ceremony comes to a halt.

Numbers 9 - KJV
2 Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season.
3 In the fourteenth day of this month, at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it.

===================

The division of the law into civil law, ceremonial law, moral law etc is not only seen in 1 Cor 7:19 -- but many denominations also notice this Bible detail - for example the Westminster Confession of Faith - section 19 , and also the Baptist Confession of Faith section 19.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I think you are missing the argument that Paul is putting forth. In the time of the writing, the emphasis was unbalanced and Paul was trying to right it. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree that not everyone will take my view of this topic - I just wanted to get the Bible evidence on the table that is all. Everyone has free will and I am not trying to oppose that. The topic is about the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments and I think it is best to stick with that subject. There is enough posting here on the gentile-circumcision-but-just-for-infants topic to serve as reference if anyone cares to look into it. Let each person draw their own conclusions.
 
Upvote 0

gadar perets

Messianic Hebrew
May 11, 2016
4,252
1,042
71
NC
Visit site
✟138,496.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The liturgy for them is ceremony - where priests offer sacrifices and offerings.

If you take away the priest, and the sacrifice and the offering --that is to say take away all the elements specified in Leviticus - the entire ceremony comes to a halt.

Numbers 9 - KJV
2 Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season.
3 In the fourteenth day of this month, at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it.

===================

The division of the law into civil law, ceremonial law, moral law etc is not only seen in 1 Cor 7:19 -- but many denominations also notice this Bible detail - for example the Westminster Confession of Faith - section 19 , and also the Baptist Confession of Faith section 19.
My main point is this: In such a division, man has decided what is ceremonial and what is moral, not Yahweh. That is why Christians will say the Sabbath is a ceremonial law. The FACT is, all things involving the Temple ministry, including sacrifices and offering, are right actions that Yahweh commanded. For a priest to not carry them out would be immoral because all of Yahweh's laws are moral laws.

The word "ceremonies" is a poor translation of the Hebrew "mishpat" meaning judgments or ordinances. However, even if it were correct, that doesn't change the fact that putting the blood on the door posts or eating the passover in haste, etc. are moral laws.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I agree (animal) sacrifices and offerings came to an end (for believers), but they are not Scripturally called "ceremonial".

The liturgy for them is ceremony - where priests offer sacrifices and offerings.

If you take away the priest, and the sacrifice and the offering --that is to say take away all the elements specified in Leviticus - the entire ceremony comes to a halt.

Numbers 9 - KJV
2 Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season.
3 In the fourteenth day of this month, at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it.

===================

The division of the law into civil law, ceremonial law, moral law etc is not only seen in 1 Cor 7:19 -- but many denominations also notice this Bible detail - for example the Westminster Confession of Faith - section 19 , and also the Baptist Confession of Faith section 19.

My main point is this: In such a division, man has decided what is ceremonial and what is moral, not Yahweh.

Is it your claim that Numbers 9:2-3 is the work of 'man' identifying the Passover with ceremony?

That is why Christians will say the Sabbath is a ceremonial law.

If you draw the line in your efforts to correct them by going to the extreme of denying that there is any ceremonial law at all - then you open a huge door of vulnerability in your position because everyone can see in the Bible that Moses himself admits to some things being ceremonial as we just saw in Number 9:2-3.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,442
11,962
Georgia
✟1,105,042.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The word "ceremonies" is a poor translation of the Hebrew "mishpat" meaning judgments or ordinances. However, even if it were correct, that doesn't change the fact that putting the blood on the door posts or eating the passover in haste, etc. are moral laws.

Not one of the Lev 23 annual ceremonies were mandatory for gentiles. three of them were mandatory for Jews/Israel. I just think that going down the road of denying the existence of ceremonial law - is creating an indefensible argument.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.