Do Gentiles need Jesus?

[k4c]

Without the Law there is no sin so since the Law was given to the Jews and not the Gentiles then Gentiles have no sin. No sin, no need for Jesus?

 

[Stewartnz]

Yes indeed.

"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15)

Where there is no acknowledgment of law, there will be no conscious transgression.

But when the law comes home to a person, it works wrath. It agitates and condemns, and brings the person to a conscious sense of need.

Paul writes that he "was alive without the law once [i.e. as a Pharisee of the Pharisees, Paul realized no need of a Physician,] but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Romans 7:9).

What a great and necessary experience this was! Now he saw how he was in reality... Now he felt the need of a Savior.

 

[k4c]

Yes indeed.

"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15)

Where there is no acknowledgment of law, there will be no conscious transgression.

But when the law comes home to a person, it works wrath. It agitates and condemns, and brings the person to a conscious sense of need.

Paul writes that he "was alive without the law once [i.e. as a Pharisee of the Pharisees, Paul realized no need of a Physician,] but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." (Romans 7:9).

What a great and necessary experience this was! Now he saw how he was in reality... Now he felt the need of a Savior.

Amen...

I believe a religious person sees more wrong with others than they do with themselves. It takes the Holy Spirit to convict of personal sin. Paul had the Law, he was a Hebrew of Hebrews, circumcsied on the eight day, to the Law he was blameless.

Paul couldn't see his sin until the Spirit revealed it to him.

I believe the same happens with Gentiles. Whether Jew or Gentile, we are all dead to God until we come alive through the Spirit at which time, sin becomes sinful. This is when the Law is written on the heart.

 

[Shrewsbury]

Amen!

 

[k4c]

Amen!

Isn't a blessing when people allow God to lead. When this happens, God will have a people of like minded faith. A rope with three cords is not easily broken.

 

[Shrewsbury]

Isn't a blessing when people allow God to lead. When this happens, God will have a people of like minded faith. A rope with three cords is not easily broken.

I agree. Sadly, too many people prefer to work by their own efforts rather that allowing God to lead them. They dismiss God as some kind of myth or try and prove that while they may believe in God, they don't need him. Truly the Bible writer was right when he wrote:

Psalm 14

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. (KJV)

 

[Torah]

Paul's New Perspective on Gentiles
Paul's rereading of the Torah after his Damascus Road experience brought new light to the issue of the proselyte. If Abraham were the first proselyte, he stood forever as the model for the rest. What caught Paul's attention was the fact that Abraham had been blessed as a covenant member before he was circumcised. [Romans 4:9-12]

Since in Paul's day "circumcision" was a short-hand way of saying "Jewish," Paul now realized that Abraham had become a covenant member as a non-Jew—he had attained the status of covenant member by faith, not by the ritual of the proselyte. If this were true for Abraham, it was also true for all Gentiles who exercised faith in the Messiah Yeshua. Even Yeshua Himself spoke of Abraham as having seen Him:

John 8: 56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
Since this saying of Yeshua's caused such consternation among His enemies, it may well be that Paul knew of it. Once he began to reread the Torah after his Damascus Road experience, Paul understood Abraham's faith to have been directed toward Yeshua. In this way Abraham was a model for the "uncircumcised" as well as the "circumcised."[Romans 4:11-12] Abraham's story proved that God's election, confirmed by the individual's faith, was the path to covenant status for the Gentile. This fact would be foundational for Paul as he labored to preach the gospel among the Gentiles.

Paul had come to realize that attributing a status of "righteous" on the basis of a proselyte ceremony constituted an attempt to gain righteousness by one's own efforts. But such a teaching overlooked an essential element that the Torah emphasized in the scope of Abraham's covenant status, namely, that his covenant status preceded his circumcision. His "righteous" status was on the basis of faith, not on becoming a proselyte. For if Abraham, God's chosen, had "believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness," then the initial message of the Gospel to the elect must be one of faith, not ritual.

But this message of the Gospel which centered upon the exercise of faith in Messiah in no way diminished nor negated the Torah. To Paul's antagonists, the position that a Gentile could become a covenant member without being circumcised sounded as though the Torah had been ignored. In reality Paul was restoring the Torah's message of salvation by faith. He understood that a Gentile who thought he could actually gain right standing with God through becoming a proselyte was trusting in something that could never actually save him. He may feel content in his new social status as a "Jew," but before the bar of God's justice he was still counted as unrighteous.






Paul realized, then, that he would need to take a very hard-line approach toward Gentiles who were being persuaded that becoming a proselyte gained them salvation. In their ill-founded confidence, such Gentiles were doomed. Thus, denying a Gentile the ritual of a proselyte (circumcision) must be read in this context, and not as a negation of Torah. Paul needed to teach the Gentiles that the first step in their conversion was one of genuine faith in Messiah. Only after they understood that their righteousness was reckoned to them and not earned were they in a position to appreciate both the value and necessity of
Torah-obedience.

Once again, Abraham becomes the example, for his faith was evidenced by his obedience. God's sovereign choosing had brought Abraham to the covenant, and his faith in God had sealed his membership in it. But as a chosen covenant member, Abraham obeyed God and circumcised both himself and all the males of his household. [Genesis 17:23-27] For Paul the order of events was crucial: faith comes first (gaining the status of covenant member), then obedience to God's commandments (living as a covenant member).
This order was no doubt emphasized in Paul's mind by the arrangement of the covenants as well. [Galatians 3:17] The Abrahamic covenant precedes the Mosaic covenant. But what is the significance of this order? For Paul it was that justification, i.e., right standing before God (emphasized in the Abrahamic covenant and the faith it requires) comes before sanctification, i.e., being set apart unto God in one's actions (the emphasis of the Mosaic covenant with its required obedience). Redemption (the exodus from Egypt) comes first and then Torah (standing at Sinai).
To suggest that the ritual of circumcision is the gateway to right standing with God is to teach that Sinai (submission to Torah) precedes the exodus, or that the Mosaic covenant comes before God's promise to Abraham. It reverses the biblical order and is contrary to Torah. This was crucial for Paul.

The gospel he preached was the same gospel given to Abraham, [Galatians 3:8] a gospel which first centers upon the blessings in Messiah (appropriated through faith) and then effects radical changes in one's life (accomplished through obedience).

That Paul was not against circumcision for Gentiles is proven by his having Timothy circumcised. In first century halachah, it is doubtful that Timothy would have been considered Jewish. The Mishnah . [Kiddushin 3:12f] indicates that Jewish lineage could only be determined in marriages ruled valid. The "marriage" of a Jewish woman to a Gentile would not be considered valid, and thus the children from such a union would not be considered Jewish. [Shaye J. D. Cohen ["Was Timothy Jewish? (Acts 16:1-3)," JBL105/2 (1986) 251-268] presents conclusive evidence that Timothy would not have been considered Jewish by the halachic authorities of Paul's day.]



The only exception would be if the husband were a proselyte.
The primary text on the issue of Timothy being circumcised is Acts 16:1-3:

And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 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.


That Timothy's father was not a proselyte is clear from the statement that he was known as a Greek. Note also 2Timothy 1:5:


For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you [Timothy], which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois, and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well.

Paul speaks of Timothy's grandmother and mother, but does not mention his father as the source of his training in the Scriptures. This hints strongly that Timothy's Greek father was not a "God-fearer" [Acts 10:2] and that his religious training was done by his mother.
What exactly was Timothy's status within the Jewish community of his day? Most likely, he was considered a Greek. Is Timothy an example of a non-Jew who, for reasons unknown to us but acceptable to Paul, underwent circumcision as the appropriate measure for a Torah submissive Gentile? Is it possible that Paul was convinced of Timothy's genuine understanding of justification by faith alone, so much so that receiving circumcision was permissible as a Torah observant act without any sense of gaining status with God?
Often when Paul speaks of "circumcision" he is not referring to the physical act of cutting per se, but of the entire ritual by which a non-Jew became a Jew according to Rabbinic standards. As such, what he prohibits in a text like
I Corinthians 7:18-19 is the idea that one needs to change his social status to enter the covenant.
Was any man called already circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Paul did not want Gentiles to think they needed to become Jews nor that they even could become Jews. Neither did he want Jews to think that they needed to cease being Jews nor that they could. Paul expects both Jew and Gentile to keep the commandments. It seems very possible, then, that Paul would have had no problem with a Gentile remaining a Gentile, yet being circumcised. What he would never allow was a Gentile undergoing the Rabbinic ritual of a proselyte with the notion that such a ceremony would gain him the status of "righteous." This was surely "another gospel" and to Paul anathema.


Summary
Paul, based upon his understanding of the Tanach, [Old Testament] taught the sinfulness of mankind regardless of ethnic status. Since there was none who did good and all had sinned, all were unrighteous and therefore all in need of redemption. Such redemption could only be given for one could never affect one's own redemption and ethnic status did not guarantee it.
It was rather through God's own selection that people were brought near to Him and redeemed through His divine means. Seeing an election on both a corporate as well as an individual level, Paul realized that eternal salvation was granted to the individual, not the group.

While national election secured blessings for this world, only individual election that secured individual faith in the Messiah through the working of God's grace could gain a place in the world-to-come.
The gospel, then, for Paul was that God was continuing in faithfulness to the promise He had made to the Fathers, a promise that included the ingathering of the Gentiles—a promise which was in all ways centered upon Yeshua. Through the proclamation of Yeshua as Messiah, the elect would be gathered, Israel would be provoked to jealousy, and God's eternal plan to save His. people would be realized.