(Moved) The law. Is it done away with? Is it, really?

[BobRyan]

How do you know if the Gentiles who came to worship in the temple were circumcised or uncircumcised?

Did I miss a verse?

In Acts 13 - the gentiles are referred to as "Those who fear God" -

Titus was a "god fearing gentile" not required to be circumcised as we see in Galatians 2.

However Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised in Acts 16 because he was Jewish.

from God-fearer - Wikipedia

A God-fearer or Godfearer was a member of a class of non-Jewish (gentile) sympathizers to Second Temple Judaism mentioned in the Christian New Testament and other contemporary sources such as synagogue inscriptions in diaspora Hellenistic Judaism. The concept has precedents in the proselytes of the Hebrew Bible.


Hebrew Bible
In the Hebrew Bible, there is some recognition of non-Jewish monotheistic worship as being directed toward the same God. This forms the category of yirei Hashem ("יראי השם" meaning "Fearers of the Name", "the Name" being a Jewish euphemism for the Tetragrammaton, cf. Psalm 115:11).[1][2] This was developed by later rabbinic literature into the concept of Noahides, Gentiles following the seven Noahide laws, which rabbinic writings assigned to the Noahic covenant.[3]


Gentiles could not keep Passover and must remain limited by the "court of the gentiles" when at the Temple worshiping the One True God.

Acts 13

26Brothers, children of Abraham, and you Gentiles who fear God, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent.

This isn't correct. Timothy was circumcised for evangelistic causes. Timothy was a half breed.

Turns out... this is correct.

Titus was a "god fearing gentile" not required to be circumcised as we see in Galatians 2.

However Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised in Acts 16 because he was Jewish.

Acts 16
Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (which means they knew Timothy was not circumcised).

By contrast in the case of Titus -- Paul is adamant that even in consideration of those same Jews - Titus is not circumcised.

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. 4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.

It was a "given" that the gentiles were not circumcised

 

[Bob S]

Psalm 89:26-37, “He calls out to Me, ‘You are my Father, My Ĕl, and the rock of my deliverance.’ I also appoint him first-born, Highest of the sovereigns of the earth. I guard My kindness for him forever, And My covenant is steadfast with him. And I shall establish his seed forever, And his throne as the days of the heavens. If his sons forsake My Torah And do not walk in My right-rulings, If they profane My laws And do not guard My commands, Then I shall visit their transgression with the rod, And their crookedness with flogging. But My kindness I do not take away from him, Nor be false to My trustworthiness. I shall not profane My covenant, Neither would I change what has gone out from My lips. Once I have sworn by My set-apartness, I do not lie to Dawiḏ: His seed shall be forever, And his throne as the sun before Me; Like the moon, it is established forever, And the witness in the heaven is steadfast.” Selah.




“My covenant is steadfast with him” and “I shall not profane My covenant, Neither would I change what has gone out from My lips”

David was a man of God. All he had was the Torah and all of Torah could not save him. All the law could do is point out their trespasses. It was a covenant for how to live in Israel. The new covenant is a covenant of love and life eternal. David would surely understand our covenant and write beautiful accolades to Jesus and us for giving us His Rest and piece.

Why is it so many come on this forum expressing the past covenant and never mention what Jesus has done for us by giving us the new and better covenant?

 

[Bob S]

We have a new and better covenant, so why do posters feel the need to try to teach us we have to observe the old one? Thank Jesus for not burdening us with all the rituals Israel had to deal with. Do to the fact that we are still sinners and accept the promises of Jesus blood to cover our mistakes, sometimes it is even hard to love our fellow man as Jesus loves us let alone if we had to do the works of the old covenant. We are so fortunate to be part of Go's plan of salvation this side of the Cross. Amen!

No one will ever convince me to go back and live like those before the Cross.

 

[listed]

And you are trying to make God's standard of holiness, His Torah illegitimate. Did He get it wrong? Was the way He wanted His people to live a holy life now somehow different? Is this what you're saying?

When it come to the righteousness God requires, simply yes. Christians mostly conform to your idea of behavior. I think your only beef is the sabbath. This is a Christian forum supposedly and most Christians worship on Sunday following the pattern set forth in the NT. Christians aren't subject to anything in the OT.

 

[listed]

Great verse. Apparently God wasn't listening to some people on this thread. Or is that the other way around?

Apparently some on this thread refuse to listen to God and His Word even from the OT.

 

[listed]

I didn't try to prove you anything.

I was confused about your reference regarding the human posterior, so I posted some of what I know about the king of Daniels 4th Beast.

But obviously you have all the information you need.

Have a blessed day

Oh (raises eyebrows)

 

[listed]

I doubt that you're saying God is cutting off a new Covenant, so I must assume that you mean God is cutting a new Covenant.

I read the following in buggy's definition:
cut a covenant, to hew, to cut or make a covenant.

The term "new" is Strongs 2319, which comes from the root word Strongs 2318 which means to rebuild or renew!

Yes it does. What you're doing here is changing the definition. You changed from and adjective to a verb. The verb in verse 31 is make.

If they wanted to express something brand new they could have used Strongs 1278 which means a creation, new.

True. What they used however is accurate and agrees with the whole text.

Also, how could it possibly be brand new when God is writing something that already exists on the hearts of His people?

Sorry but the text says something very different.

No one said it is the same Covenant, it is a renewed Covenant but the same Torah. You know, that Torah that is spiritual? The Torah that is holy? The Torah that is good? Is this ringing a bell?

You're saying it is the same covenant only slightly remolded. I read somewhere about god knowing what he was doing. Your idea would mean no remodel or altercation. The evidence is jots and tittles have indeed changed even with your argument about renewal. If that renewal doesn't include Jesus as a replacement of the levitical priesthood, Jesus isn't the Savior.

 

[listed]

They are spelled the exact same way in Hebrew.
But if you want to call it a new Covenant that is accurate enough. But you cannot say that the Torah which is written on the heart is not the same Torah. There is no support for that position.

Did God suddenly create different standards of holiness for His people? If He did then His nature changed and we both know that is against Scripture.

Verse 32 fully supports buggy's idea.

In English we have some of the same type of words. Read and read for example. Then we have read and red. All are different words either spelled or pronounced the same. I don't think you have a valid point. Sentence context always gives meaning to a word.

God didn't change what sin is. The law came because of sin (Galatians 3:19). That means sin preceded the law, instead of inventing it.

 

[listed]

However Paul requires that Timothy be circumcised in Acts 16 because he was Jewish.

Acts 16
Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (which means they knew Timothy was not circumcised).

Thanks for supporting my statement with your verse.

 

[listed]

David was a man of God. All he had was the Torah and all of Torah could not save him. All the law could do is point out their trespasses. It was a covenant for how to live in Israel. The new covenant is a covenant of love and life eternal. David would surely understand our covenant and write beautiful accolades to Jesus and us for giving us His Rest and piece.

Why is it so many come on this forum expressing the past covenant and never mention what Jesus has done for us by giving us the new and better covenant?

I think the reality is they truly don't follow Jesus.

 

[Bob S]

I think the reality is they truly don't follow Jesus.

I believe some are so absorbed in trying to keep the Sabbath and all the other things they deem important that Jesus is left in the background. It is no wonder the New Testament is full of admonition to us not to rely on works of the law for salvation. Our reliance is fully on Jesus Christ.

Where there is no law there is no sin. There are no Sabbath laws or old covenant ritual laws in the new covenant. The new covenant is not about laws. It is about salvation. The old covenant is defunct, great history, but not the standard for Christians under the new covenant. Keeping the old covenant would add nothing to the joy of serving Jesus, and He has told us what we do for the least of His children we have done unto Him. We should be more concerned with serving Jesus than pleasing a defunct covenant.

Once again I would like to post the words of the SDA prophet for all to know really how some believe they are saved. I truly hope that all will see what really drives the populous of group. I copy and paste this without malice to any SDA. I love my SDA brethren and only wish for them the best, Jesus and Him alone, He is enough.

It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." {6T 356.4}

When you see an appealing post from those who are trying to persuade others to observe the Sabbath the above is one reason why. Could it really be that the keeping of Sabbath is more important than loving our fellow man? It is our decision to make.

 

[ralliann]

They are spelled the exact same way in Hebrew.
But if you want to call it a new Covenant that is accurate enough. But you cannot say that the Torah which is written on the heart is not the same Torah. There is no support for that position.

Did God suddenly create different standards of holiness for His people? If He did then His nature changed and we both know that is against Scripture.

Different standards of holiest things reserved for the priests (and their families at times)? God did just that in the law already. The Israelites were not even allowed to eat of the holy things, nor to enter into the temple itself. They were not allowed to put anointing oil on themselves, nor put on holy garments for glory and beauty. In fact the law considers them strangers (estranged) to the house of God. Various levels of holiness? You bet there is under the law.

 

[Dig4truth]

When it come to the righteousness God requires, simply yes. Christians mostly conform to your idea of behavior. I think your only beef is the sabbath. This is a Christian forum supposedly and most Christians worship on Sunday following the pattern set forth in the NT.

Christians aren't subject to anything in the OT.

Well then you have nothing to do with the faith of Abraham or the Covenant God made with him. You have none of the promises that God has made with His people. Some were mentioned in the NT but not all by any means.

You have counted 2/3 of the Bible as irrelevant. You are dividing the Word of God on what grounds? What are these new commands? List them please. Remember that love is defined by the Torah of God. So don't even mention love without reference to the Torah.



Deut 32:7-8 “Remember the days of old,
Consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you,
Your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dig4truth]

Different standards of holiest things reserved for the priests (and their families at times)? God did just that in the law already. The Israelites were not even allowed to eat of the holy things, nor to enter into the temple itself. They were not allowed to put anointing oil on themselves, nor put on holy garments for glory and beauty. In fact the law considers them strangers (estranged) to the house of God. Various levels of holiness? You bet there is under the law.

Those are the standards. That's the point. They have not changed. Get it?

 

[Dig4truth]

Verse 32 fully supports buggy's idea.

In English we have some of the same type of words. Read and read for example. Then we have read and red. All are different words either spelled or pronounced the same. I don't think you have a valid point. Sentence context always gives meaning to a word.

God didn't change what sin is. The law came because of sin (Galatians 3:19). That means sin preceded the law, instead of inventing it.

Sentence context does help define the meaning of some words. Like in this case where the Torah is written on people's hearts. Would this be a brand new Covenant or a renewed Covenant? If it contains components of the same Covenant as before then a renewed definition is indicated.

No one has said what Torah is written on our hearts if it isn't the one and only Torah from God. Can someone list them if they are brand new? Anyone? And remember, if it has anything to do with love then it is covered in the Torah already.

 

[ralliann]

Those are the standards. That's the point. They have not changed. Get it?

No, I don't......
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

 

[Dig4truth]

I believe it is a misunderstanding to say that the Mosaic Covenant is contrary to the Abrahamic Covenant.

I The Abrahamic Covenant:
1) The promise of a special relationship: "to be God to you and your descendants" Gen 17:7
2) The gift of the land: Gen.15:18-19
3) The promise of an increase in number: Gen.17:6
4) Establishing the covenant to Abraham's descendants as an everlasting covenant: Gen.17:7,19
5) The promise of blessing: Gen.12:2; 26:24
6) The nations will be blessed: Gen.12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14

II The Mosaic Covenant:
1) The promise of a special relationship: A treasured people, Ex. 19:5 Be your God and you will be My people, Lev. 26:12
2) The gift of the land: Ex. 23:20-23; Lev. 26:42
3) The promise of an increase in number: Lev. 26:9
4) Confirming the covenant to subsequent generations: Lev. 26:9
5) The promise of blessing: Deut.11:26f
6) Israel will be a light, a blessing to the nations: Isa. 2:3; 51:4

As you can see the two Covenants are not separate and distinct but woven together in the flow of redemptive history.
It is not as though God has gone back on His word, at first promising unconditional blessing to Abraham, and then changing His Covenant to be conditional at Sinai. Far from it! God, in choosing Abraham and his offspring, had set Himself to form a people who would be characterized by His own holiness.
The Covenants of Abraham came not only with blessing, but also with provision to attain that blessing through obedience. Indeed, the Abrahamic Covenant anticipated the Mosaic Covenant as the means by which that promised blessing would be realized!

And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. Gen. 18:17-19


The blessings promised in the Abrahamic Covenant are secure because God intends to enable Abraham's offspring to do righteousness and justice. To put it in theological terms, the promise of the covenant assures the sanctification of those who will be blessed.
Thus, the Mosaic Covenant, the Torah through the Holy Spirit, is given to bring about that holiness which would, in turn, produce the promised Covenant blessings.
It was necessary then that those who would receive the unconditional blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant should be righteous, not only in a forensic or "positional" sense, but in "doing righteousness and justice." In this way, it is necessary for every Covenant member to have the Torah, because it is in the Torah that God's revelation and standards of righteousness and justice are revealed.
The Abrahamic Covenant is presented as unilateral (God initiating and promising) just as justification is God's sole work. Likewise, the Mosaic Covenant is presented as bilateral (God and Israel working together) just as sanctification is presented in the Bible as the cooperation between the redeemed soul and the Almighty.
But if the Abrahamic covenant included the Gentiles, then it is also necessary that the Gentiles have the Torah; for the Torah (Mosaic Covenant) is the God-given means to prepare His people to receive the blessings promised to Abraham. God's blessings come upon the righteous, not the wicked!
To say that the Gentiles are blessed in the Abrahamic covenant but have no part in the Mosaic covenant would be like saying a person could be justified without becoming sanctified. Such a scenario finds no place in the biblical record.

 

[Dig4truth]

No, I don't......
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Yes, but that was fortold in the OT! Get it? It was not something that was a surprise and not accounted for. It was in the Scripture that the Scripture would change in this point so it is a fulfillment of Scripture.

 

[Bob S]

Well then you have nothing to do with the faith of Abraham or the Covenant God made with him. You have none of the promises that God has made with His people. Some were mentioned in the NT but not all by any means.

May I remind all that the covenant with Abraham was not part of the covenant made with Israel.

You have counted 2/3 of the Bible as irrelevant. You are dividing the Word of God on what grounds? What are these new commands? List them please. Remember that love is defined by the Torah of God. So don't even mention love without reference to the Torah.

I cannot see that he has. We are not under the old covenant law, but there is much to glean from the lives that have gone before us.

Deut 32:7-8 “Remember the days of old,
Consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you,
Your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, When He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.

relevance???

 

[ralliann]

I believe it is a misunderstanding to say that the Mosaic Covenant is contrary to the Abrahamic Covenant.

I The Abrahamic Covenant:
1) The promise of a special relationship: "to be God to you and your descendants" Gen 17:7
2) The gift of the land: Gen.15:18-19
3) The promise of an increase in number: Gen.17:6
4) Establishing the covenant to Abraham's descendants as an everlasting covenant: Gen.17:7,19
5) The promise of blessing: Gen.12:2; 26:24
6) The nations will be blessed: Gen.12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14

II The Mosaic Covenant:
1) The promise of a special relationship: A treasured people, Ex. 19:5 Be your God and you will be My people, Lev. 26:12
2) The gift of the land: Ex. 23:20-23; Lev. 26:42
3) The promise of an increase in number: Lev. 26:9
4) Confirming the covenant to subsequent generations: Lev. 26:9
5) The promise of blessing: Deut.11:26f
6) Israel will be a light, a blessing to the nations: Isa. 2:3; 51:4

As you can see the two Covenants are not separate and distinct but woven together in the flow of redemptive history.

Paul explains....

Ga 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Which covenant was confirmed before in Christ? This could not disannul the promise.

It is not as though God has gone back on His word, at first promising unconditional blessing to Abraham, and then changing His Covenant to be conditional at Sinai. Far from it! God, in choosing Abraham and his offspring, had set Himself to form a people who would be characterized by His own holiness.
The Covenants of Abraham came not only with blessing, but also with provision to attain that blessing through obedience. Indeed, the Abrahamic Covenant anticipated the Mosaic Covenant as the means by which that promised blessing would be realized!

De 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

De 9:4 Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee.

Ro 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Ro 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
As is the new covenant made in Christs blood.
Ge 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Ge 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Maybe a thread is due to actually look at the covenants.....
Genesis 15, is to the 4th generation. Abe is told he would die. as well as Isaac and Jacob, and we know Joseph
Ge 50:25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.
Ex 13:19 And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you; and ye shall carry up my bones away hence with you.

Acts as well as Hebrews say this, in accordance

2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.


Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

We do not receive the second inheritance through the generations of the law. We receive the generation from the holy spirit in Christ. We walk as sojourners here, just like Abraham and Isaac, and Jacob.
Not even the priests which kept the law, when Israel sinned, inherited with Israel.