Seventh-day Adventists and the Torah on the heart.

TrustAndObey said:

Okay, Acts 15:1 says And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner (custom) of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

I was looking over the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17 and obviously circumcision was around long before Moses was even born.

The only custom I found relating to Moses is that the stranger had to be circumcised in order to keep the Passover (Exo 12:48).

A friend of mine said being circumcised at eight days old was in the Law of Moses, but that's back in the covenant with Abraham too (Genesis 17:12).

Click to expand...

Circumcision was imported into Moses in Leviticus 12:1-3:

1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3: And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

This was a direct commandment from God that made circumcision part of the Mosaic covenant. Jesus ascribes circumcision being a commandment mediated by Moses in John 7:22:
Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

TrustAndObey said:

So why does Jesus say this: John 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

Was there another custom relating to Sabbath?

Click to expand...

It appears to me that the "law of Moses" referred to in this passage is circumcision itself.

TrustAndObey said:

What is He talking about? Strangers wanting to keep the Passover? It's not about the eighth day circumcision because Jesus says "MAN" and not baby. So He had to be referring to the "stranger" right?

Click to expand...

The masculine noun anthrōpos used in John 7:23 is a generic term that does not disclude babies.

TrustAndObey said:

I'm confused as to why Jesus called it the Law of Moses in John when circumcision was around before Moses and it isn't referring to an eighth day circumcision, UNLESS it's about the Passover?

Click to expand...

There isn't anything in the context of John 7 that would restrict the application to only the Passover. In fact, John 7:2 places this passage during the fall feast of Tabernacles.

TrustAndObey said:

Am I missing a custom of Moses relating to circumcision?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can best address this by determining why circumcision dissappeared as a requirement for those redeemed from the Mosaic covenant. When God trasnferred circumcision to Moses in Leviticus 12:1-3, He at that time lifted it from mediation via Abraham - legally, circumcision wouldn't be a requirement under Abraham anymore. When we read of the continuence of the covenant of promise that comes from Abraham before the law existed, the requirement of circumcision doesn't survive its transfer to Moses, and no longer exists. This is the basis of salvation we have through Abraham, as Galatians 3:15-18:

15: Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
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.
18: For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

It is by nullification of the law mediated by Moses (the covenant of the ten commandments) that removes the restraints barring the promises given to Abraham.
If it were not for the transfer of circumcision from Abraham to Moses, then it would have been difficult to argue against the requirement that all men would need to become circumcised as a entrance sign into the promise of salvation. This was the confusion that was brought onto the scene by the believing Jews in Acts 15:5-6:

5: But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6: And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

Even in the minds of the Pharisees, who understood the law in their role similar to that of an attorney, ascribed circumcision to Moses and raised the question of compliance to the Mosaic covenant (as do SDA's, at least in part). It was in the next verses that Peter observed that acceptance of the Gentiles, who were neither circumcised nor compliant with the law of Moses (the ten commandments) was from God:

Acts 15:7-10
7: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8: And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9: And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10: Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Peter's observation was that God no longer made the Mosiac covenant a litmus test for who was to be sealed with the Holy Ghost, the promise of adoption by His own Spirit.
The conclusion of the Jerusalem council was that since God no longer regarded Moses, neither should we.

Victor