The Law of Moses Has Not Been Abolished

cgaviria

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
1,854
184
37
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Visit site
✟23,353.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
The festivals in the sense that you are bringing up are prophecies not law.

The festivals are indeed Law, hence why it is called an "ordinance",

"This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD--a lasting ordinance. (Exodus 12:14 [NIV])
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,913
7,993
NW England
✟1,053,013.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Law was given to Jews, but it is God's Law. It is not instructions for how to act like Jews, but rather it is instructions for how to act according to God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness.

It was instructions for those people to show that they WERE God's people and had a covenant with him.Refraining from unclean meat, wearing "pure" clothes - i.e of one fibre only - was how they showed that they were holy, different and pure.

All Gentiles who have faith in Messiah become part of God's chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a treasure of God's own possession (1 Peter 2:9-10), therefore they should act as such according to God's instructions to His chosen people.

Yes; following the commands that Jesus gave.
Jesus is our Saviour, Lord and Messiah; he came to show us what God is like, how to live and does not, anywhere, say that his disciples need to obey the Jewish law.

Indeed, faith does not exist without an object.

Jesus isn't an object, he's a person; God himself.

and because of that faith they were careful to live in obedience to all of God's commands, just as we should.

I do; but those commands are not the OT, Jewish law.

According to Matthew 1:21, our salvation is from sin, according to Romans 3:20, the law was given to make us conscious of sin, according to Romans 7:7, we would not even know what sin is if it weren't for the Law, and according to 1 John 3:4, sin is defined as the transgression of the Law,

Yes, as Paul said, if the law had not said, "do not covet", he would not have known that it is wrong to covet.
If the law did not say, "don't steal", no one could be done for shop lifting.

Perhaps I should say here that when I say "law" I am not referring to the 10 commandments, which were taught and upheld by Jesus, but to all those other laws found in Leviticus - like refraining from certain meats, stoning to death anyone who does not keep the Sabbath, wearing garments made from only one fabric, not touching people who are bleeding or have skin conditions. All these are also written in the OT. For me, keeping "the law" means obeying ALL of these - including more obscure ones like not trimming your beard, rising when your elders enter a room, etc etc.

I'm not saying we can ignore the 10 commandments; I am referring to all these latter laws.
Salvation is through Jesus alone; NOT Jesus + abstaining from pork or Jesus + keeping festivals - not even Jesus + church tradition or practice. Only Jesus.

I'm not going to answer the rest of your post, for now; I just wanted to be sure that we have the same definition of "law" - or are you saying that it includes all those smaller laws, like those I have just mentioned?
I don't think even Jews stone people who do not keep the Sabbath, and they no longer have animal sacrifices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,913
7,993
NW England
✟1,053,013.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They were encouraging the new believers to listen to Moses read in the synagogues for further instruction in the law.

If they had been, then Paul wouldn't have later taught that circumcision wasn't necessary. He would have urged Gentile converts to believe in Jesus AND be circumcised and keep the law. The writer of Hebrews would not have said that the law was only a shadow and the old covenant, and that a change of priest means a new covenant.

They actually met for the Jerusalem Council to discuss what requirements needed to be met to engage in table fellowship in a mixed community.

No, they met for the following reason;

"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question". Acts 15:1-2.

"5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. " Acts 15:5-6

The Council of Jerusalem was about whether Gentile believers had to keep the law of Moses to be saved. The Council concluded that they didn't, but advised them to refrain from eating blood and food that had been offered to idols. The law of Moses was read in every synagogue, and the apostles still visited synagogues and preached there.
But those verses say nothing about abstaining from pork or shellfish, wearing robes made in a certain way, keeping the Sabbath, not touching people who are "unclean", etc. As I say, only a short while later, Paul wrote to the Corinthians saying that idols don't matter and eating meat offered to one was permissible, as long as it didn't hurt the faith of other people.
 
Upvote 0

Aseyesee

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2017
1,745
1,473
64
Norfolk, Virginia
✟59,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for the kind thoughts. Closed up last night and went to bed -- tired.

Does it say the fella Philip baptized was a Jew? Of course Peter's definition of all on the day of Pentecost was not the all God actually used the word as, and it almost appears as irony that a gentile has the greatest faith in all Israel, not to mention the difference in treatment by Jesus between the two genders, of the only two gentiles he spoke to that was recorded, though God did not have this distinction it seems in the OT, though it appears as far and in between.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aseyesee

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2017
1,745
1,473
64
Norfolk, Virginia
✟59,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's funny to me that people still argue over what they argued about over 2000 years ago.

Christ came and died, putting away sin once and for all, or was that almost all, or was that if you keep the law.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

NeedyFollower

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,024
437
63
N Carolina
✟71,145.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Celibate
What scripture are you using to conclude that in order for a gentile to be under the law they have to first be circumcised? I am not aware of this teaching from Torah. If you are referring to Act 15, please note, the ones saying this were NOT the apostles, they were Rabbinic believers, still carrying their man-made traditions.

The law never required that gentiles be circumcised, with one exception.


Circumcision:


  1. was PreMosaic. (Gen 17:11-12)
  2. was a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham;
  3. Isn’t required by a gentile who attaches himself to Israel because he is not part of the house of Abraham. Therefore he is not REQUIRED to be circumcised. He can voluntarily become circumcised, thus becoming an Israelite, but it isn’t REQUIRED, except for one condition.

If a gentile was a slave or manservant to an Israelite and they wanted to participate in their bosses' Passover Feast they were required to be circumcised as a sign of covenantal subordination. Therefore, again you are incorrect. That is the only law in the OT that requires that a gentile be circumcised.


Exodus 12:48-49 NASB 48 "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. 49 "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you."


As to your erroneous statement that gentiles were not placed under the law by the Jerusalem church. I don’t even know how to respond. The text says plainly that they had to keep several Mosaic laws in order to fellowship with the Apostles and other believers. Not only that, check out the next verse.



Ac 15:21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."


In other words, these four laws are the minimum requirements to have table fellowship (Acts 15:20), meanwhile they can continue to grow in the knowledge of Moses by attending to those who preach him every Sabbath at the synagogues.

In summary: Circumcision is a ritual performed by the children of Abraham as a sign that they have received the Abrahamic covenant. It predates Mosaic Law and it was for the children of Abraham.

And finally, a warning to the gentiles in the end times from the Messiah. If they don’t want their candlestick removed from their church, then they had better keep both of these Mosaic Laws – which begs the question: if these, then how many more?

Re 2:14 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit [acts of] immorality.
I am somewhat hesitant to enter this debate and am afraid of a " spirit " of debate if you will. That being stated, I am aware of Messianics and Hebrew Roots groups that appear to hold that by our new birth in Christ and through the Holy Spirit , we are now able to keep the Law of Moses . Is this what you would also say ? Such as keeping sabbaths , festivals , feast days , new moons and other ordinances ? It seems that by so doing we would ultimately reestablish the old covenant ? In my experience , I no longer desire to do the things I did before Jesus Christ came and found me ( by God's grace ) ..I am still working out my salvation ..making my calling and election sure but it is through and because of the great mercy and love that God has shown me ..He had NO reason to forgive such a wicked man as myself but yet He did . What great love !!! Is it not wonderful that as Moses was not allowed to take the children of Israel into the promised land ..that was prophetically left for Joshua ...it agrees with " The Law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ .
There is a greater need for discipleship rather than evangelism but followers of Christ should be prepared to count the cost....I am aware that those who follow the law for their justification can easily become self-righteous and spiritually proud which is almost impossible to see . Grace and mercy should lead to humility and love I believe ..may we all be given more . Grace and peace .
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Realize that all through history, all through Scripture,
all those who sought to obey YHWH obeyed YHWH.

Simple.

TORAH was not able to cleanse anyone of their sins, or to remove death, the penalty for sin,
but TORAH is listed all through SCRIPTURE as a GOOD AND RIGHT LAW FROM YHWH.


No one was punished for obeying TORAH.

But if they thought that by obeying TORAH that would remove their sinfulness,
THAT misplaced TRUST is what was and is the problem.

OBEYING TORAH IS LEGAL, RIGHT, and JUST.

TRUSTING JESUS , His Shed Blood for Redemption, Atonement, and Forgiveness
is necessary .

Disobeying TORAH leads to many problems, maybe death,

just like a child disobeying their dad out in the midst of lions seeking whom they might devour !

So stay close to GOD, and DO as HE SAYS, like is repeated Genesis through Revelation,
and particularly in ROMANS (even for gentile who have not TORAH)....
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
David,

My reply to your four short comments on the meaning of Galatians 2.

Point 1 (all the underlining is yours):

Galatians 2

11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

David’s first explanation:

Peter was self condemned and Paul was the one who confronted Peter at Antioch. This is what the text states, this is not my opinion or interpretation.

My comment:

Peter and Barnabas, while visiting the church in Antioch, got into an argument with Paul. As an FYI, other NT text says that Barnabas was a converted Levite, filled with the Holy Spirit, the original overseer of the Antioch church, and the one who recommended Paul for his replacement. Peter, was given both the Holy Spirit and discharged with the responsibility to feed Christ’s sheep by Christ himself. Peter had already been told by Christ that at the resurrection, he and the other 11 Apostles (Paul not included) would sit on Christ’s throne and judge Israel.

The first four words of your first conclusion are “Peter was self-condemned” though the text says no such thing. When a person “self-condemn” they admit to failure but the text only states Paul’s accusation against Peter and Barnabas. Peter has said nothing.

David’s second explanation:

The source of the error was James, men came to Antioch and were enforcing the works of the law. Peter withdrew from fellowship with the Gentiles and held 'himself aloof'. Even Barnabus fell into this error, Barnabus was also self condemned. This is a very serious matter, not one that Paul took lightly.

My comment:

Paul accused James of causing the problem by sending Hebrews from Jerusalem to manipulate Peter. He claimed that Peter acted from fear and not from a sense of right or wrong. No evidence is given to support Paul’s accusation against James or Peter.

What exactly did Paul condemn them over? Peter at one time was willing to eat with certain gentile believers, then apparently changed his mind and withdrew from table fellowship.

The text provides no reason why Peter and Barnabas quit eating with the gentile converts and there is no mention of ‘works of the Law’ that you claimed. It might have been the meat had been strangled, or previously offered in prayer to an idol. We don’t know if this included general dinners, or ritual meals such as Passover or a last supper communion event. Any guess would be futile to defend.

In summary, Paul did the condemning, Peter did not self-condemn or for that matter even speak, no evidence is offered showing that James was masterly maneuvering the Holy Spirit inspired Peter by forcing him to do “works of the law.” The issue at stake was how to properly execute table fellowship with the gentile converts and nothing else.

In later Pauline writings, Paul defended and enforced Mosaic table fellowship laws demonstrating that Paul was not asking for the removal of those laws or any other laws. In 1 Cor 5:11 and 1 Cor 10:7 Paul forbid his church from eating with idolaters, drunks or thieves. He taught his gentile Corinthian church to properly enforce the table fellowship law. I realize this truth repulses a lot of people – that Paul taught and upheld Mosaic law - but it did make him consistent with Christ, who after His resurrection, condemned a church for breaking table fellowship laws by eating things sacrificed to idols (Rev 2:14).

Conclusion:

Paul accused Peter and Barnabas of breaking some form of Mosaic Table Fellowship law, and nothing else. We know from Acts 15:29 that a covenant law suit was filed that led to the Jerusalem Decree which created the following ordinance for Table Fellowship.

Gentile converts are welcome to participate in community meals as long as they 1) refuse foods offered to idols, 2) refuse to serve animal flesh that had been strangled, 3) refused to eat blood, and 4) removed all fornication from themselves. All four requirements are Mosaic Torah laws.

Paul and all the Antioch church accepted Jerusalem’s decision with joy! (Acts 15:30-31), never questioning the binding requirement of Law. Paul’s demand for a covenant lawsuit demonstrated Paul’s desire for more focused Law and not less, or even its removal.

An ordinance is a sub-law that explains how to keep the greater Command based on surrounding or current conditions.


Point 2 (all the underlining is yours)

Galatians 2

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

David’s explanation:

The error of the Jerusalem church was evident, they were forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews! This means that the Gentiles were being placed under the yoke of the law, as the church in Jerusalem was.

My Comment:

Paul takes his complaint public claiming that Peter is misrepresenting the gospel by forcing gentiles to live like Jews. Since we have already been told that the argument was over table fellowship, it stands that Paul accused Peter of making gentiles to live as Jews concerning table fellowship.

I caution you not to expand the point of the argument into a full-scale war against Torah Law. It has already been shown that Paul also taught Mosaic table fellowship laws, by demanding Paul’s divorce of Torah Law, is not only false but makes Paul two-faced and unreliable. You cannot eliminate a law and teach it at the same time.

The term “Jew(s)” is awkward. Earlier in the text Paul called Peter a Jew, though he wasn’t. He was a Galilean (Mt 26:69). The reference may have been an insult considering Christ had been opposed and crucified by the Jews. Christ said Jewish teachers were the offspring of Satan (John 8:44; Rev 2:9; 3:9) that replaced God’s Torah Law with false laws called “traditions of men.” They cancelled God’s Law.

Mr 7:7 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' 8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

The point is that the “Jews” are considered the enemies of God, Christ and the early church, both in Judea and all gentile nations, wherever they lived. If this assessment is correct, then Paul was deriding Peter as one that had absorbed Babylonian Talmudic teaching as acceptable law, making him a “Jew.” Beyond this, the reason Paul called Peter a Jew with the phrase “live like a Jew” is a matter of debate. After reviewing nine commentaries, I received six different opinions on its meaning.


Point 3 (all underlining is yours)

15 “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

David’s explanation:

Following the law will not justify anyone, Peter, James, and Barnabus were under the law, and therefore, they were condemned.

My comment:

Do you really thing that Peter, James and Barnabas didn’t understand the doctrine of Justification after being personally taught by Christ himself? After running the Nazarene congregation for around 20 years? That they needed an ex-Pharisee to connect all the strings together for them?

Two decades before Paul, Peter witnessed Christ pour out His spirit on a Roman gentile soldier named Cornelius (Acts 10) because the Roman earnestly sought God as a God fearer. In short, Peter witnessed salvation without works of the Law. Yet, Peter wasn’t surprised by the method of Justification because the Law never taught salvation by works of the Law. From the very beginning, Israel knew they had been first saved from Egyptian slavery by grace (justification) before receiving the Laws of God for their sanctification.

Your claim that Peter was condemned for being lawful contradicts the words of Christ. On the contrary, Peter will sit on Christ’s throne judging all Israel and condemnation has been reserved for the lawless (Mt 7:23).

The only ones that preached salvation by works were the dreaded “Jews” – not works of Torah Law but their own man-made traditions. The persecutions of Christ in the Gospels culminate when the Jews killed Christ for demanding correct Torah observance including the remission of sin by confessing Him as the Son of God. Peter’s gospel is resolute; justification comes by the blood and resurrection of the dead.

1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Claiming the Nazarene church led by Peter, James and John taught false doctrine that placed them under some form of bondage is sheer madness. You are saying that Christ lied when he told the rich man that he could receive eternal life by keeping the Law. Presumably, the rich man had already been justified.

Mt 19:17 And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is [only] One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."


Point 4 (all underlining is yours)

Galatians 2

19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.

David’s explanation:

The law is dead, you need to die to the law. Even more importantly, Gentiles were never commanded to obey the law of Moses.

My comment:

Paul said that through LAW he died to law so that now He can live for Christ.

Paul’s testimony explains this verse. He said about himself that he had been a Pharisee, a son of a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), righteous according to all Pharisee law (Php 3:5) and kept the strictest tenets of their faith (Acts 26:5). He had been a student of Gamaliel, one of the most esteemed teachers of the Pharisees (Acts 5:34) and even murdered many of the Nazarene Believers to defend Pharisee law.

Yet much later after his conversion, he confessed that he forfeited everything once was to become a believer in Christ and to follow His Teachings (hid death). He simply considered his former way as a Pharisaical lawyer a life of trash (Php 3:8). The Torah Law brought forth by Christ, including the remission of sins by His sacrifice, enabled Paul to die to all previous law he had lived by.

The principle is life for life. You give your life to God and in return you receive His eternal life. You exchange your passions for His passions, your dreams for His dreams, and your ambitions for His ambitions. By submitting, you die to your self-will in exchange for His will.

Final Thought:

In an earlier email, you condemned Peter a sinner that led the Jerusalem congregation into bondage. You say that everybody who learns to properly interpret, apply and live by Torah Law are sinners, devoid of the Spirit and under bondage. Incapable to fulfill the “Law of Christ.” And for some strange reason, many gentile Christians including you David, just like the Pharisees of old (Acts 15:5), propagate very poor teaching by insisting that Mosaic law demanded gentile circumcision – when it doesn’t unless the gentile participates in Passover with an Israelite overlord in the Land of Israel (Ex 12:48-29).

Now, I will repeat a portion of a prior post listing Torah laws taught by Paul and the Son of God. This is neither a comprehensive list nor does it include John, Peter and others but it is sufficient to show the continuity of the Gospel between all the New Testament characters. Paul did not nullify the Law taught by all other Apostles and church leaders. They all followed Christ’s example without fail by pursuing holiness.

These teachings were given to Israelites, Nazarenes, Christians, Jews, and gentiles. They were given before the Cross and after the Cross. They include holiness laws and ritual laws. They explain the transfer of priesthood from Levi to Melchizedek and the transfer from animal blood sacrifice to Christ’s blood sacrifice. Since all Christians worship the Son of God, and are told to imitate His behavior (Eph 5:2; 1 John 2:6), they should put aside their bias against God’s law and try to understand the greater gospel.

Shortened list of Torah laws taught by the Son of God.

Beginning with the Beatitudes, Christ taught not to violate the anger laws (Lev 19:17; 5:22), not to violate the slander laws (Lev 19:16; Mt 5:22), he upheld the institution of religious courts (De 1:16; 25:1; Mt 5:25), he upheld the binding decisions of ecclesiastical judges (Mt 5:26; De 17:11). He enforced another Mosaic law forbidding lust in the heart (Mt 5:28; De 5:21), he taught how to correctly understand the divorce laws (Mt 5:32; De 24:1), and explained the impact of fornication marriage and adultery (Lev 21:7; De 7:3; Lev 18:6, 22). He forbids divorce and remarriage except for marriage fraud and fornication (Mt 19:9; De 22:13-21). Christ supported the restriction on personal vengeance and private conflict (Mt 5:39-41; Lev 19:18; Ex 21:18). Christ upheld the poor man loans (Mt 5:42; De 15:7) and to love our enemies (Mt 5:44; Lev 19:18).

Shortened list of Torah laws taught by Paul.

Paul taught OT incest laws (1 Cor 5:1; Lev 18), muzzle the ox laws (1 Cor 9:9; De 25:4), homosexuality laws (Rom 1:26; Lev 18), divorce laws (1 Cor 7:11; Mt 19:9; De 24:1), and submission to ecclesiastical authority (Act 23:5; Ex 22:28).

Decide for yourself, but the New Covenant transferred God’s affection and covenant responsibilities including stewardship of God’s laws away from the ineffectual “stones” who rebelled against covenantal obedience to those whose hearts yearn for fellowship with God (Jer 31:31-33), thus becoming the “Living Stones.” Re 22:14, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life…”
Hello Davena.

Concerning the second chapter of Galatians.

You made the following comment about Peter and Barnabus, both being condemned by Paul.
What exactly did Paul condemn them over? Peter at one time was willing to eat with certain gentile believers, then apparently changed his mind and withdrew from table fellowship. The text provides no reason why Peter and Barnabas quit eating with the gentile converts and there is no mention of ‘works of the Law’ that you claimed.
I asked you to read this second chapter yourself, if you had actually read and studied this chapter. You would not have made the comment that you made above.

The text proclaims the first reason why Peter held Himself aloof from the gentiles. Peter contrary to your poor comprehension of chapter two, was afraid of the party of the circumcision (line 12).

The second reason that Peter held himself aloof from the gentiles.

14 But when I saw that they (Peter) were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel

Peter was not aligned with the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If Peter had been following the gospel directly, he would not have seperated himself from the gentiles.

The third reason was that Peter felt the need to force the gentiles to live like the Jews, before he could fellowship with them.

14...how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Then above these three reasons, Paul clearly identifies the primary reason that Peter held himself aloof.

15 “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus.

Peter was following the law, Peter was a Jew, the gentiles were unclean, and the gentiles were sinners. This the first occurence of the phrase, 'the works of the Law', by Paul. Peter was following the dictates of the law, in regard to compelling the gentiles to live like the Jews.
there is no mention of ‘works of the Law’
16 ...so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law...
there is no mention of ‘works of the Law’
16...since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Paul is directly condemning the church in Jerusalem, those of reputation in the eyes of the Galatians. Paul accuses these apostles of reputation, as being the cause of the Galatian's attempts to justify themselves by the law. That is why Paul mentions Peter, Barnabus and even James, to the Galatians!
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
What scripture are you using to conclude that in order for a gentile to be under the law they have to first be circumcised? I am not aware of this teaching from Torah. If you are referring to Act 15, please note, the ones saying this were NOT the apostles, they were Rabbinic believers, still carrying their man-made traditions.



The law never required that gentiles be circumcised, with one exception.


Circumcision:


  1. was PreMosaic. (Gen 17:11-12)
  2. was a sign of God’s covenant with Abraham;
  3. Isn’t required by a gentile who attaches himself to Israel because he is not part of the house of Abraham. Therefore he is not REQUIRED to be circumcised. He can voluntarily become circumcised, thus becoming an Israelite, but it isn’t REQUIRED, except for one condition.

If a gentile was a slave or manservant to an Israelite and they wanted to participate in their bosses' Passover Feast they were required to be circumcised as a sign of covenantal subordination. Therefore, again you are incorrect. That is the only law in the OT that requires that a gentile be circumcised.


Exodus 12:48-49 NASB 48 "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. 49 "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you."


As to your erroneous statement that gentiles were not placed under the law by the Jerusalem church. I don’t even know how to respond. The text says plainly that they had to keep several Mosaic laws in order to fellowship with the Apostles and other believers. Not only that, check out the next verse.



Ac 15:21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."


In other words, these four laws are the minimum requirements to have table fellowship (Acts 15:20), meanwhile they can continue to grow in the knowledge of Moses by attending to those who preach him every Sabbath at the synagogues.

In summary: Circumcision is a ritual performed by the children of Abraham as a sign that they have received the Abrahamic covenant. It predates Mosaic Law and it was for the children of Abraham.

And finally, a warning to the gentiles in the end times from the Messiah. If they don’t want their candlestick removed from their church, then they had better keep both of these Mosaic Laws – which begs the question: if these, then how many more?

Re 2:14 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit [acts of] immorality.
Hello Davena.

Leviticus 12:3
On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Sin is transgression of the law.

Circumcision is the law, to be uncircumcised is disobedience to the law.
 
Upvote 0

Davena

Active Member
Feb 21, 2016
69
29
US
✟9,321.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello Davena.

Leviticus 12:3
On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Sin is transgression of the law.

Circumcision is the law, to be uncircumcised is disobedience to the law.

Please see post # 473 for my response.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davena

Active Member
Feb 21, 2016
69
29
US
✟9,321.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That being stated, I am aware of Messianics and Hebrew Roots groups that appear to hold that by our new birth in Christ and through the Holy Spirit , we are now able to keep the Law of Moses . Is this what you would also say ? Such as keeping sabbaths , festivals , feast days , new moons and other ordinances ? .

Hello,
A person that advocates the law is saying that the laws of God have existed since Adam and will continue until there is a new heaven and earth. Laws maintain order and structure, therefore, as long as God remains in covenant with human beings, as long as there is a kingdom of heaven among men, there will be law.

The law has always been with the people of God, and the priests have always been responsible to protect and teach His Law. That's why they are called priests, so the new priesthood, the living stones that constitute the Melchizedek priesthood carry on that time honored responsibility.

What has changed are the people that God has been willing to covenant with. For two thousand years God's people were the descendants of Abraham along with gentile converts, and for the last two thousand years it has been those "willing to do the will of my father." Covenants are contracts between two parties, the terms of the covenant are given as laws.

All Christians acknowledge this truth when they confess their willingness to keep the "Laws of Christ" summarized as Love God and love the brotherhood. So why not just say to keep the Law of Christ instead of Moses? Because the law of Moses became the law of Christ with numerous ordinance changes. Nevertheless, Mosaic law remains the foundation (John 1). This is why Christ and all the Apostles lived, taught and judged by Torah law. The Beatitudes are the classic example because everything taught in the Gospel of Matthew was Mosaic law. The Apostles also created and modified many ordinances to reflect the new covenant environment.

Knowing that the law remains and it is a living agreement, makes it incumbent on us to learn how to properly interpret and execute God's law in our lives. So for that reason we search the Old and New Testament for examples. If Christ kept and taught certain OT law then we do as well. If Paul taught and kept certain laws then we do so as well. If Christ changed a law then that becomes the law.

I hope this answers your question. It will take a minute to read, but the following text explains the dynamic nature of the law that permits alterations based on covenant requirements.

----
Commandments
are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:3-17) and tend to be broad in nature. They are the fundamental and supreme law that never change and remain in effect explaining how to love YHVH and to love our brothers.

The Old Testament, also called the Tanakh, consist of three canons: the Law, Prophets and Psalms. The Law is recorded in the first five books of the bible and is also called the Torah in Hebrew and Pentateuch in Greek. The Commandments along with the statutes form the foundation of the theocracy and are always accompanied with the promise of blessings or curses depending on your willingness to uphold them (Jos 8:32). The Ten Commandments listed are:

  1. You must confess that there is only one God and that is YHVH.

  2. You shall not make idols or worship them.

  3. You shall not take the name of YHVH in vain.

  4. Remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy.

  5. Honor your father and mother.

  6. You shall not murder.

  7. You shall not commit adultery.

  8. You shall not steal.

  9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

  10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife and property.
Statutes are secondary laws that expound by expanding the commandments. They can be perpetual or temporary in time. If no time limit is expressed and the statute is governed by another statute that is limited in time then its time limit expires along with the governing statute. Statutes tend to address all of the people of Israel in perpetuity.

The “land laws” are examples of expiring statutes when the land grant was taken from them.

Sometimes we are told when a law is a statute.

Nu 31:21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the men of war who had gone to battle, "This is the statute of the law which YHVH has commanded Moses​

Other times you must discern if a law is a statute such as the holy day and dietary statutes. We also must discern if a statute is still in force. In this example, the statute is perpetual as long as their generation exist. The time limit is “forever throughout your generations.”

Le 23:14 'Until this same day, until you have brought in the offering of your God, you shall eat neither bread nor roasted grain nor new growth. It is to be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.​

Ordinances explain how to carry out a statute therefore it must not alter or degrade the original statute. The power to create ordinances was given to the judges and Levites and later to the Disciples of Christ (Mt 18:18). Ordinances can be created and terminated or naturally terminate when the statute it defines expires and are often created to establish how a group of people living in an unusual condition can fulfill a commandment or statute.

De 17:8-10 “If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which YHVH chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you.”​

In Galatians, Paul identified the entire sin sacrificial system as ordinances designed to expire when the “Promised Seed” arrived. He explained the ordinances as a “schoolmaster” designed to bring us to Christ. In other verses, Paul called the collective body of sin sacrifice ordinances the “law of righteousness” (Rom 9:31; 10:4) that was scheduled to expire.

Ga 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made.​

Ga 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor [to lead us] to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​

Jeremiah confirmed that the laws regulating sacrifices were ordinances that had been added to the law because of sin.

Jer 7:21 Thus says YHVH of hosts, the God of Israel, "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh. 22 "For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 "But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'​

Both Samuel and David confirmed that sacrifices were not desired by YHVH. He wanted them to listen and obey His Voice but when they refused they were required to sacrifice animals. Israel sacrificing animals reflected their sinful behavior.

1Sa 15:22 And Samuel said, "Has YHVH as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of YHVH? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, [And] to heed than the fat of rams.​

Ps 51:16 For Thou dost not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; Thou art not pleased with burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.​

Ho 6:6 For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.​

Yahshua did not enforce sacrificial laws because he always did what His Father told Him to do. He exercised the Mosaic covenant without reference to the ordinances given to pacify sin.

Joh 5:30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge.​

So what do you think, when Elijah brings forth the Law of Moses will he enforce sacrifices?

Mal 4:4 Remember the law of Moses My servant, [even the] statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel.​

When Moses broadened the divorce laws to accommodate Israel’s hardened heart, he created a marriage ordinance. Yahshua terminated the Mosaic ordinance citing the original law given in the Garden of Eden.

Mt 19:8 He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.​

Ordinances can be amended based on circumstances. In the following example, the Passover ordinances were changed twice. The timing of the day remained the same but the location of the event changed due to different living circumstances. The timing remained because the Passover statute mandated it and ordinances cannot supersede its controlling statute. The ordinances were created to govern where to eat the Passover. The Statute given by YHVH determined when to keep the event.

Le 23:4 'These are the appointed times of YHVH, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at the times appointed for them. 5 'In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is YHVH'S Passover.​

Originally Passover ordinance said to eat in a single house.

Ex 12:43 And YHVH said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it; 44 but every man's slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it. 45 "A sojourner or a hired servant shall not eat of it. 46 "It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it. 47 "All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this. 48 "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to YHVH, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.​

Later it was changed to only the place where YHVH placed His name.

De 16:5 "You are not allowed to sacrifice the Passover in any of your towns which YHVH your God is giving you; 6 but at the place where YHVH your God chooses to establish His name, you shall sacrifice the Passover in the evening at sunset, at the time that you came out of Egypt.​

The power to create ordinances has led to a great deal of abuse. In this narrative the Pharisees demand to know why Yahshua and his disciples did not follow a tradition as if it was an ordinance created “by their fathers.”

Mt 15:1 Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Yahshua from Jerusalem, saying, 2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."​

In reply, Yahshua criticized the Pharisees for promoting traditions that invalidate the Law. A definite no-no. Men are not permitted to elevate their traditions over YHVH’s Commandments and statutes.

Mt 15:3 And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?​

As evidence He revealed that the Pharisees had created a way to horde wealth by neglecting the commandment to honor their father and mother. By doing so they fulfilled the words of Isaiah the prophet which said that God’s people would reduce the faith to “traditions” and “lip service” (Is 29:13) while neglecting the true Commandments. The reality is that people given the power to create binding law are tempted to elevate their teachings at the expense of God’s law. This was the same sin that Lucifer succumbed to (Is 14:13).

Mt 15:7 "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 9 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"​

Judgments are ordinances created by judges when they render judgments. Their rulings cannot annul or degrade a law or statue and it cannot remove another ordinance though it can reprioritize them. Their judgments often factored in events and facts specific to a particular case.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davena

Active Member
Feb 21, 2016
69
29
US
✟9,321.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello Davena.

Concerning the second chapter of Galatians.

You made the following comment about Peter and Barnabus, both being condemned by Paul.

I asked you to read this second chapter yourself, if you had actually read and studied this chapter. You would not have made the comment that you made above.

The text proclaims the first reason why Peter held Himself aloof from the gentiles. Peter contrary to your poor comprehension of chapter two, was afraid of the party of the circumcision (line 12).

The second reason that Peter held himself aloof from the gentiles.

14 But when I saw that they (Peter) were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel

Peter was not aligned with the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If Peter had been following the gospel directly, he would not have seperated himself from the gentiles.

The third reason was that Peter felt the need to force the gentiles to live like the Jews, before he could fellowship with them.

14...how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Then above these three reasons, Paul clearly identifies the primary reason that Peter held himself aloof.

15 “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus.

Peter was following the law, Peter was a Jew, the gentiles were unclean, and the gentiles were sinners. This the first occurence of the phrase, 'the works of the Law', by Paul. Peter was following the dictates of the law, in regard to compelling the gentiles to live like the Jews.

16 ...so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law...

16...since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Paul is directly condemning the church in Jerusalem, those of reputation in the eyes of the Galatians. Paul accuses these apostles of reputation, as being the cause of the Galatian's attempts to justify themselves by the law. That is why Paul mentions Peter, Barnabus and even James, to the Galatians!

All three of your statements were addressed in my paper. Paul accused Peter (Ga 2:11), Paul accused Peter of fearing the party of circumcision (Ga 2:12), Paul accused Peter of Hypocrisy (Ga 2:13). That doesn't mean that Peter was guilty of any of those accusations. In fact, in the Jerusalem decree (Acts 15), Peter was not rebuked or censured, by the leaders. Peter was not told he had to eat with the gentiles (period); the gentiles were told what they needed to do to eat with Peter or Barnabas. This is what my paper was trying to point out -- the decision was very suggestive.

My paper is in chronological order and broken into segments.

The quote you selected at the beginning of your rebuke, regarding "works of the law," is located in my reply, Section 3, not Section 1 which deals with verses Ga 2:11-13. In verses Ga 2:11-13 there is no mention as to what the controversy is about. You cannot say specifically what the conflict was about. Was it circumcision, was it bloody meat, was it strangled meat, was it meat sacrificed to idols or some Extra-biblical Rabbinic Law? We don't know if they were in disagreement about Rabbinic Law or God's Law, which makes it very risky and presumptuous to flush the whole of God's law down the toilet.

11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

"Works of the Law" is dealt with in section 3, which is Paul's monologue, but again doesn't specify whether he's talking about Rabbinic Law (which was the party of the circumcision) or God's law (which were the Law of Christ and God).

15 “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

If you've read through any of this thread you will realize I have never advocated Justification by works. Justification is by the hand of Christ alone, unto sanctification of my soul, which is an ongoing work.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davena

Active Member
Feb 21, 2016
69
29
US
✟9,321.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If they had been, then Paul wouldn't have later taught that circumcision wasn't necessary. He would have urged Gentile converts to believe in Jesus AND be circumcised and keep the law. The writer of Hebrews would not have said that the law was only a shadow and the old covenant, and that a change of priest means a new covenant.

Perhaps an alternative approach might help. Instead of assuming all roads point to an abolished law, maybe try to understand why circumcision is not necessary for the foreigners. We were given the answer at the same time as we were given circumcision.

Abraham was commanded to circumcise not only the members of his family, but also foreigners in his household. However, the command specifically applies to foreigners purchased with money (Ex 12:44).

Ge 17:11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a [servant] who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.​

I believe we can both agree that Christ is the seed promised to Abraham (Ga 3:16, Ps 105:6). The question becomes, why are those who have been joined to the seed of Abraham (Ro 11:24) not required to be circumcised? They are, after all, foreign members of the household of Abraham’s seed.

It’s because they are foreigners living in the household of Abraham’s Seed, purchased through the blood of Christ, and not with money (1Pe 1:18, Ac 20:28).

Re 5:9 And they *sang a new song, saying, "Worthy art Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood [men] from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.​

They are, however, required to be circumcised in their hearts, which is to love God with all your heart, mind and soul. Thankfully, love has been defined for all foreigners who wish to have a circumcised heart.

1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Davena

Active Member
Feb 21, 2016
69
29
US
✟9,321.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does it say the fella Philip baptized was a Jew? Of course Peter's definition of all on the day of Pentecost was not the all God actually used the word as, and it almost appears as irony that a gentile has the greatest faith in all Israel, not to mention the difference in treatment by Jesus between the two genders, of the only two gentiles he spoke to that was recorded, though God did not have this distinction it seems in the OT, though it appears as far and in between.

Ac 8:27 And he arose and went; and behold, there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship.​

The Ethiopian Eunuch could have been Jewish or a proselyte.

The Syrophoenician and the Centurion both humbled themselves, just in different ways, don't you think? She bowed and wept at His feet, humbly accepting that He didn't have to give her anything and the Centurion recognized that Christ's authority was even greater than his -- probably not easy for a Roman soldier.

Elisha, though he healed Naaman, didn't interact with him -- which almost caused Naaman to miss out on his healing. That may have been a test for Naaman, who knows?

The spies who interacted with Rahab, ended up saving her family. She also married someone from Judah.

Caleb was a gentile or a convert, who ended up being the head of Judah.

When someone shows faith and submits themselves to God, or His covenant agent, God is faithful to responds according to His good will.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,913
7,993
NW England
✟1,053,013.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps an alternative approach might help. Instead of assuming all roads point to an abolished law, maybe try to understand why circumcision is not necessary for the foreigners.

The law has not been abolished.
If I was Jewish and believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah, then the law is fulfilled in him; he is the one of whom the law and prophets spoke.
As I am Gentile and was never under Jewish law, then Jesus is my Lord, Saviour and salvation. Yes, he has fulfilled the law and the OT prophets point to him. This probably doesn't mean as much to me, as a Gentile, as it would to the Jews. But Jesus saves, gives eternal life and I have every spiritual blessing through him, Ephesians 1:3.

Abraham was commanded to circumcise not only the members of his family, but also foreigners in his household. However, the command specifically applies to foreigners purchased with money (Ex 12:44).

Ge 17:11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a [servant] who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.​

If they were in Abraham's household - presumably as slaves - they belonged to him.
In those days a man was head of his household and it seems that whatever affected him, or he took on, affected the household too. For example, if he converted to the Jewish, or Christian, faith, his household did too. In Acts 16 where the Jailer is baptised, his household are too - no mention of their faith or repentance. If a Roman emperor was killed, all his relatives and households were too. If a man became a slave and was sold, he belonged to his master. If he married and had children, they belonged to his master too. That's why both Sarah and Rachel said to their servants girls, "sleep with my husband, then your children will be his."

I believe we can both agree that Christ is the seed promised to Abraham (Ga 3:16, Ps 105:6). The question becomes, why are those who have been joined to the seed of Abraham (Ro 11:24) not required to be circumcised? They are, after all, foreign members of the household of Abraham’s seed.

It’s because they are foreigners living in the household of Abraham’s Seed, purchased through the blood of Christ, and not with money (1Pe 1:18, Ac 20:28).

If you're saying that foreigners - i.e Gentiles - don't need to be circumcised today, then that's a matter for debate with the Jews.

It still doesn't answer the question, "where does Jesus say, 'come to me and have eternal life, but then go and keep the Jewish law'?" Where in the NT do we see Gentiles believing in Jesus, being baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit and then given a copy of the Torah and told "now you need to go and keep that"? Jesus showed us how to live and gave us a command to love as he did - he didn't say that a Gentile's salvation will only be complete if they now try to keep all the rules that the Hebrew people were given at Sinai, (and which they had failed to keep anyway.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aseyesee

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2017
1,745
1,473
64
Norfolk, Virginia
✟59,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ac 8:27 And he arose and went; and behold, there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship.​

The Ethiopian Eunuch could have been Jewish or a proselyte.

The Syrophoenician and the Centurion both humbled themselves, just in different ways, don't you think? She bowed and wept at His feet, humbly accepting that He didn't have to give her anything and the Centurion recognized that Christ's authority was even greater than his -- probably not easy for a Roman soldier.

Elisha, though he healed Naaman, didn't interact with him -- which almost caused Naaman to miss out on his healing. That may have been a test for Naaman, who knows?

The spies who interacted with Rahab, ended up saving her family. She also married someone from Judah.

Caleb was a gentile or a convert, who ended up being the head of Judah.

When someone shows faith and submits themselves to God, or His covenant agent, God is faithful to responds according to His good will.

I do (they humbled themselves), and I believe that, like Judas and a money bag, there is symbolism surrounding not only what Jesus did but all those things that surrounded him, and what lead up to these moments.

There is also the gentile who God came to in a dream, and has albeit short, a conversation with him over Abram' s (or is that Abraham's, I forget) wife, who said to God, you know me, and God replied in kind to him, like yep I do.
 
Upvote 0

sparow

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2014
2,552
428
85
✟488,858.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The law has not been abolished.
If I was Jewish and believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah, then the law is fulfilled in him; he is the one of whom the law and prophets spoke.
As I am Gentile and was never under Jewish law, then Jesus is my Lord, Saviour and salvation. Yes, he has fulfilled the law and the OT prophets point to him. This probably doesn't mean as much to me, as a Gentile, as it would to the Jews. But Jesus saves, gives eternal life and I have every spiritual blessing through him, Ephesians 1:3.



If they were in Abraham's household - presumably as slaves - they belonged to him.
In those days a man was head of his household and it seems that whatever affected him, or he took on, affected the household too. For example, if he converted to the Jewish, or Christian, faith, his household did too. In Acts 16 where the Jailer is baptised, his household are too - no mention of their faith or repentance. If a Roman emperor was killed, all his relatives and households were too. If a man became a slave and was sold, he belonged to his master. If he married and had children, they belonged to his master too. That's why both Sarah and Rachel said to their servants girls, "sleep with my husband, then your children will be his."



If you're saying that foreigners - i.e Gentiles - don't need to be circumcised today, then that's a matter for debate with the Jews.

It still doesn't answer the question, "where does Jesus say, 'come to me and have eternal life, but then go and keep the Jewish law'?" Where in the NT do we see Gentiles believing in Jesus, being baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit and then given a copy of the Torah and told "now you need to go and keep that"? Jesus showed us how to live and gave us a command to love as he did - he didn't say that a Gentile's salvation will only be complete if they now try to keep all the rules that the Hebrew people were given at Sinai, (and which they had failed to keep anyway.)

Circumcision is another debate; but what should be noted is circumcision, except in the beginning and conversions, circumcision was for 8 day old boys who had no say in the matter; Baptism is where adults repent and make decisions.

The Law was given, never retracted; Jesus confirmed this; the Catholics had victory over the Protestants at the Council of Trent with a single argument; "If you want to go by the Bible and the Bible alone, then you will have to keep the fourth commandment." The abrogation of the Law cannot be established from scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,913
7,993
NW England
✟1,053,013.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Circumcision is another debate; but what should be noted is circumcision, except in the beginning and conversions, circumcision was for 8 day old boys who had no say in the matter; Baptism is where adults repent and make decisions.

I know.
My point was that when the head of the household did something, the rest of the household did as well - whether it was being baptised, or whatever.
So if foreigners in Abraham's household were circumcised, probably it was because they belong to Abraham; he was circumcised, so they were.

The Law was given, never retracted; Jesus confirmed this;

The law was given to Hebrews; to those who had formerly been slaves to the Egyptians and been delivered, by God to be his people.
I am not Jewish and have no Jewish ancestors. To say to me, a Gentile, "Jesus saves and has given you eternal life - now go and live under a law which was given to others and which your Saviour, Jesus, has fulfilled anyway"; makes no sense.

[QUOTE="sparow, post: 71249563, member: 359546" the Catholics had victory over the Protestants at the Council of Trent with a single argument; "If you want to go by the Bible and the Bible alone, then you will have to keep the fourth commandment." [/QUOTE]

What's that got to do with Gentiles having to keep Jewish law?
And how do you define "the Law"? 10 commandments only, or entire Torah, including food, clothing and hygiene laws?
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

B_Man

A Simple Man Moving Through Life
May 10, 2017
7
4
Tennessee
✟16,443.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
It still doesn't answer the question, "where does Jesus say, 'come to me and have eternal life, but then go and keep the Jewish law'?"

Please allow me to answer your questions. Actually, that statement should be revised. Please allow Yahshua to answer your questions.

Joh 5:14 Afterward Yahshua *found him in the temple, and said to him, "Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse may befall you."​

Joh 8:11 And she said, "No one, Lord." And Yahshua said, "Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more."
In fact, we're told that when Yahshua sends the helper, he will convict the world of...SIN. What is sin? Sin is lawlessness (1Jo 3:4).

Joh 16:8
"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;​

Yahshua tells us that His friends do what he commands them.
Joh 15:14 "You are My friends, if you do what I command you.​

What does Yahshua command His people to do? Does he abrogate the law?
Mt 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.​

Having read many of your posts, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume what you're thinking...that Yahshua was talking to Jews, and that Christians are allowed to engage in lawlessness without consequences. However, AFTER Yahshua died (Post death), he told his disciples to teach the gentiles ALL that he had commanded them. After reading the following verse, please go back and read the verse listed above (Mt 23:23).

Mt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."​

Where in the NT do we see Gentiles believing in Jesus, being baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit and then given a copy of the Torah and told "now you need to go and keep that"?

Let's see...John says we aren't to sin.
1Jo 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Yahshua the righteous;​

James says the Gentiles are to learn the law.
Ac 15:21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."​

...he didn't say that a Gentile's salvation will only be complete if they now try to keep all the rules that the Hebrew people were given at Sinai...

Interesting declaration. I don't recall Yahshua ever declaring that the law was dead. In fact, I seem to remember reading something along the lines of, if we do not abide in Yahshua, we are thrown into a hot fire to be burned.
Joh 15:6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
He also said that those who do not love Him do not keep his words, which are the words of God himself.

Joh 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
With the knowledge that not keeping Yahshua's words means we don't love Him, or God, and that His words were to teach all the NATIONS (Not Jews) His words (Mt 28:19), let's once again read the following.

Mt 23:23
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.​

I hope these verses adequately answer your tongue-in-cheek questions about whether or not Yahshua advocated keeping the law.

Now, please let me pose a question to you.

Where did Yahshua ever say: "You're forgiven, go and sin much more?"

Or: "I only speak the words of my Father...except for the law, written by the finger of God on the tablets?"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0