Col 2:16 is about not judging others

[bbbbbbb]

Sounds good! And since we are living it through him, we don't take the physical actions described in the law of Moses, such as circumcision.

Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 6:18 - New International Reader's Version

Brothers and sisters, may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

www.biblegateway.com

Curiously, circumcision, which was a very deeply embedded religious rite in Judaism, is never commanded in the Old Testament nor are there any descriptions regarding how it is to be performed.

 

[Leaf473]

Curiously, circumcision, which was a very deeply embedded religious rite in Judaism, is never commanded in the Old Testament nor are there any descriptions regarding how it is to be performed.

Are we talking about the same thing? It looks to me like it's commanded with some detail.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 17:12 - New International Reader's Version

It must be done for all time to come. Every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised. That includes those who are born into your own family or outside it. It also includes those bought with money from a stranger.

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 12:3 - New International Reader's Version

On the eighth day the boy must be circumcised.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are we talking about the same thing? It looks to me like it's commanded with some detail.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 17:12 - New International Reader's Version

It must be done for all time to come. Every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised. That includes those who are born into your own family or outside it. It also includes those bought with money from a stranger.

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 12:3 - New International Reader's Version

On the eighth day the boy must be circumcised.

www.biblegateway.com

Thanks! I had forgotten about the brief reference to it in Leviticus. That passage is very much focused on what a woman must do following childbirth and only mentions circumcision in passing. Although Genesis has multiple references to circumcision, it is not one of the Ten Commandments nor does God seem to have commanded it directly in the Sinaitic covenant. It seems to have been so deeply embedded already in Jewish identity and practice that no further commandment or specific instructions were required.

 

[Thera]

Curiously, circumcision, which was a very deeply embedded religious rite in Judaism, is never commanded in the Old Testament nor are there any descriptions regarding how it is to be performed.

To me it seems specific enough.

Genesis 17:9-11 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Circumcise just means to cut around (although we associate it with circumcision of the foreskin, as that is the context it is primarily used in). And foreskin is the unneeded skin barrier covering the male member at birth. When the flesh of the foreskin is circumcised, the male member is freed from the excess skin (also making it easier to clean, more difficult for bacteria to build up, and other hygiene benefits). Or were you referring to what tools were to be used, what the ceremony should entail, or something like that?

Thanks! I had forgotten about the brief reference to it in Leviticus. That passage is very much focused on what a woman must do following childbirth and only mentions circumcision in passing. Although Genesis has multiple references to circumcision, it is not one of the Ten Commandments nor does God seem to have commanded it directly in the Sinaitic covenant. It seems to have been so deeply embedded already in Jewish identity and practice that no further commandment or specific instructions were required.

I think this is the reason for the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant was for all of Abraham's descendants (i.e. prior to the 10 commandments), whereas the Sinaitic covenant was for the Israelites who covenanted with God at Sinai (already circumcised in order to remain Israelites).

 

[bbbbbbb]

To me it seems specific enough.

Genesis 17:9-11 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Circumcise just means to cut around (although we associate it with circumcision of the foreskin, as that is the context it is primarily used in). And foreskin is the unneeded skin barrier covering the male member at birth. When the flesh of the foreskin is circumcised, the male member is freed from the excess skin (also making it easier to clean, more difficult for bacteria to build up, and other hygiene benefits). Or were you referring to what tools were to be used, what the ceremony should entail, or something like that?

I think this is the reason for the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant was for all of Abraham's descendants (i.e. prior to the 10 commandments), whereas the Sinaitic covenant was for the Israelites who covenanted with God at Sinai (already circumcised in order to remain Israelites).

I apologize for the confusion I inadvertently created in my post. I should have said that circumcision is not directly commanded in the Sinaitic covenant. Its relationship to the Abrahamic covenant is problematic and has been debated on several levels. At a very basic level the Abrahamic covenant is considered to be non-conditional (God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants without anything required for them to do on their part) whereas the Sinaitic covenant is conditioned by God on the obedience of Israel. If Israel obeys God's commandments they receive His promised blessings, but if they disobey they received His promised cursings. Of the many commandments given specifically on Mount Sinai, curiously circumcision is not one of them. Thus, there is no stipulated blessing for those Israelites who circumcise their sons, nor any stipulated curse for those who do not.

One could turn the Abrahamic covenant into a condition covenant if one were to view circumcision as being the condition for Abraham and his descendants to receive the land. This view is problematic because circumcision is not directly tied to the promise in the covenant.

What do you think?

 

[Thera]

I apologize for the confusion I inadvertently created in my post. I should have said that circumcision is not directly commanded in the Sinaitic covenant. Its relationship to the Abrahamic covenant is problematic and has been debated on several levels. At a very basic level the Abrahamic covenant is considered to be non-conditional (God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants without anything required for them to do on their part) whereas the Sinaitic covenant is conditioned by God on the obedience of Israel. If Israel obeys God's commandments they receive His promised blessings, but if they disobey they received His promised cursings. Of the many commandments given specifically on Mount Sinai, curiously circumcision is not one of them. Thus, there is no stipulated blessing for those Israelites who circumcise their sons, nor any stipulated curse for those who do not.

One could turn the Abrahamic covenant into a condition covenant if one were to view circumcision as being the condition for Abraham and his descendants to receive the land. This view is problematic because circumcision is not directly tied to the promise in the covenant.

What do you think?

My understanding was there were two covenants with Abraham. One was unconditional - God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants without anything required of them. The second is conditional - to be considered a descendant of Abraham, the males had to be circumcised. The promise to Abraham would be fulfilled irrespective, but for those to come, to inherit Abraham's promise, they had to circumcise and be circumcised. Finally, the Mount Sinai commandments presumed circumcision was already in place. If one hadn't been circumcised, he was cut off from Israel already, and not a partaker in the Mount Sinai commandments.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My understanding was there were two covenants with Abraham. One was unconditional - God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants without anything required of them. The second is conditional - to be considered a descendant of Abraham, the males had to be circumcised. The promise to Abraham would be fulfilled irrespective, but for those to come, to inherit Abraham's promise, they had to circumcise and be circumcised. Finally, the Mount Sinai commandments presumed circumcision was already in place. If one hadn't been circumcised, he was cut off from Israel already, and not a partaker in the Mount Sinai commandments.

I think your position is consistent with scripture. Others have viewed the Abrahamic covenant as being completely unconditional in contrast to the Sinatic covenant. Hence, Paul, in Romans, contrasts the two in his presentation of the gospel. I think there is merit to both views. I also agree that circumcision was so firmly established by the time of the Exodus that it really did not need further commandments and clarification. That may be one of the arguments at the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) by which Gentile believers in Jesus Christ were not required to be circumcised.

 

[BobRyan]

Right, and we see just a bit earlier in Galatians that Jesus was born under the law. The general logic of "those who break the law are under the law" doesn't really fit imo.

Depends on context. No one rigid wooden rule fits all cases.

In Rom 3:19-20 "under the Law" is clearly "under the condemnation of the Law".

But in Gal 4 we see that Christ is also born "under the Law" which is to say under the Old Covenant agreement we find in Gen 2 "obey and live" which is also stated in Gal 3.

Christ only had one path of success - complete 100% obedience. And that is what He did.

So too all mankind is under the law - under that Gen 2 old covenant of "obey and live" and since all have sinned - then all are lost. So then all need the Gospel

 

[BobRyan]

My understanding was there were two covenants with Abraham. One was unconditional - God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants without anything required of them. The second is conditional - to be considered a descendant of Abraham, the males had to be circumcised. The promise to Abraham would be fulfilled irrespective, but for those to come, to inherit Abraham's promise, they had to circumcise and be circumcised. Finally, the Mount Sinai commandments presumed circumcision was already in place. If one hadn't been circumcised, he was cut off from Israel already, and not a partaker in the Mount Sinai commandments.

Mt Sinai was a nation covenant not an individual covenant.,

Under both the nation-covenant and the individual covenant "obey and live" it is a sin to take God's name in vain.

But God does not charge the nation of Israel of breaking the nation-covenant the moment someone covets on the day God speak the TEN. Rather it is not until the entire nation engages in the worship of a golden calf that God says the nation-covenant of "obey and live" has been broken.

 

[Leaf473]

Depends on context. No one rigid wooden rule fits all cases.

In Rom 3:19-20 "under the Law" is clearly "under the condemnation of the Law".

It's different words in Greek,
ἐν τῷ νόμῳ
compared with
ὑπὸ νόμον

But in Gal 4 we see that Christ is also born "under the Law" which is to say under the Old Covenant agreement we find in Gen 2 "obey and live" which is also stated in Gal 3.

Christ only had one path of success - complete 100% obedience. And that is what He did.

So too all mankind is under the law - under that Gen 2 old covenant of "obey and live" and since all have sinned - then all are lost. So then all need the Gospel

 

[BobRyan]

It's different words in Greek,
ἐν τῷ νόμῳ
compared with
ὑπὸ νόμον

And yet - we can all read Rom 3:19 to see that condemnation context in the term "under the Law"

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

At some point - attention to Bible details repeatedly posted need to enter into your responses.

 

[Leaf473]

And yet - we can all read Rom 3:19 to see that condemnation context in the term "under the Law"

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

At some point - attention to Bible details repeatedly posted need to enter into your responses.

Romans 3:19 is "in the law", so Paul may not necessarily mean the same thing as "under the law" in Galatians

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 3:19 is "in the law", so Paul may not necessarily mean the same thing as "under the law" in Galatians

Romans 3:19 says "UNDER THE LAW"

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Are you employing some creative writing? Is it your view that "only some" humans need the Gospel??

Do you not look at any of the details in the text ??

Do you ever wonder how it is that almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today and that they apply to all the world -- "the whole world" as Paul says in Rom 3:19?

How is it that Christianity is so united on this one point in your view?

 

[Leaf473]

Romans 3:19 says "UNDER THE LAW"

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

You may wish to check out the footnote in the NASB,

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 3:19 - New American Standard Bible

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

www.biblegateway.com

Yes, it can be translated Under the law, as in the main text. The key point is that it's a different phrase from what is used in Galatians.

Are you employing some creative writing?

Not at all, just dealing with the Greek.

Is it your view that "only some" humans need the Gospel??

Not at all,

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 3:9 - New American Standard Bible

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

www.biblegateway.com

Do you not look at any of the details in the text ??

There are lots of interesting details in this text. One thing is that Paul quotes from places like Psalms and Isaiah and seems to refer to that as "the law".

Another place where he quotes Isaiah and calls it "the law",

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 14:21 - New International Reader's Version

In the law it is written, “With unfamiliar languages and through the lips of outsiders I will speak to these people. But even then they will not listen to me.” (Isaiah 28:11,12) That is what the Lord says.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Leaf473]

Do you ever wonder how it is that almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today and that they apply to all the world -- "the whole world" as Paul says in Rom 3:19?

Well, they do it by reinterpreting the seventh day Sabbath as Sunday.

As John Paul II wrote,
"...the underlying reasons for keeping "the Lord's Day" holy — inscribed solemnly in the Ten Commandments — remain valid, though they need to be reinterpreted in the light of the theology and spirituality of Sunday.
.."

How is it that Christianity is so united on this one point in your view?

Probably because the same Holy Spirit is leading them.

Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 4:3 - New American Standard Bible

being diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[BobRyan]

Well, they do it by reinterpreting the seventh day Sabbath as Sunday.

They claim it was Saturday as God gave it in the OT

 

[Leaf473]

They claim it was Saturday as God gave it in the OT

The references that I've been able to find say things like this:

For where it is kept for the sake of rest alone, it is clear that he who does not need rest may break the sabbath and rest on some other day, as nature allows.
-Luther

Martin Luther and the Sabbath

Martin Luther and the Sabbath By Kelly McDonald, Jr. As we come upon the day commonly called “Reformation Day”, we are reminded to consider the life of Martin Luther. He defied abuses within the la…

sabbathsentinel.org

 

[BobRyan]

As John Paul II wrote,
"...the underlying reasons for keeping "the Lord's Day" holy — inscribed solemnly in the Ten Commandments — remain valid, though they need to be reinterpreted in the light of the theology and spirituality of Sunday.
.."

Indeed they affirm all ten -- but edit one as per man made tradition.

 

[BobRyan]

The references that I've been able to find say things like this:

You may need to read more of their documents on the subject:

======================================================================
The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II - argues this point --

1965 -- first published 1959

(from "The Faith Explained" by Leo Trese page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...
nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

 

[BobRyan]

Convert's Catechism

Full text of "The convert's catechism of Catholic doctrine"

3. The Third Commandment.
Q. What is the Third Commandment?
A. The Third Commandment is: Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.

---------------------------50

Q. Which is the Sabbath day ?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.

Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday ?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.

Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.

Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her.

Q. What does the Third Commandment command?
A. The Third Commandment commands us to sanctify Sunday as the Lord's Day.