two covenants

[Mercy74]

What version are you using? There is no such things as "solemn promise" etc. in any bible version I have read? Are you just inserting your interpretation into the above?
Because this covenant is established in Abrahams seed Isaac.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.


Ge 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

Ga 3:16 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.

Of all Abrahams sons it was Isaac that was the seed spoken of here....Not Ishmael, or his sons by Keturah.
Can we agree on this?

Contemporary English Version

 

[Mercy74]

The circumcision of the flesh is point to a spiritual circumcision...there is No benefits of flesh circumcision for our spiritual growth if Sin still rule over the flesh...old body rule by sin must be put to death so new body is free of sin and everlasting....

Please read Genesis 17:14 (CEV)

 

[ralliann]

Contemporary English Version

i'm sorry but that version militates against what the new testament teaches concerning God swearing an oath establishing immutabilty of the things spoken in the covenant.
Which was done in the sacrificing of Isaac...…………….
13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: {confirmed … : Gr. interposed himself by }
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

 

[Gup20]

I never challenged the vaiidity of circumcision of the heart. Both are required.

The whole book of Galatians is Paul making the case that circumcision of the flesh is not required to be qualified as a seed of Abraham and an heir of the Abrahamic covenant. Furthermore, in Romans 4 Paul says that Abraham was made righteous for his faith while uncirumcised (as a Gentile who didn't have The Law) and that those with the same faith as Abraham (while uncircumcised) are qualified as heirs of the promise by faith.

 

[Mercy74]

i'm sorry but that version militates against what the new testament teaches concerning God swearing an oath establishing immutabilty of the things spoken in the covenant.
Which was done in the sacrificing of Isaac...…………….
13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: {confirmed … : Gr. interposed himself by }
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

First you said you never read a version, you said there was no version and thought I posted my own ideas. Then you asked me for a version, now that you have a version of the bible, you don't like the version. Why don't you admit that you were wrong.

 

[Mercy74]

The whole book of Galatians is Paul making the case that circumcision of the flesh is not required to be qualified as a seed of Abraham and an heir of the Abrahamic covenant. Furthermore, in Romans 4 Paul says that Abraham was made righteous for his faith while uncirumcised (as a Gentile who didn't have The Law) and that those with the same faith as Abraham (while uncircumcised) are qualified as heirs of the promise by faith.

Paul is not arguing against circumcision;
Acts 21
19 Paul greeted them and told how God had used him to help the Gentiles. 20 Everyone who heard this praised God and said to Paul:My friend, you can see how many tens of thousands of the Jewish people have become followers! And all of them are eager to obey the Law of Moses. 21 But they have been told that you are teaching those who live among the Gentiles to disobey this Law. They claim that you are telling them not to circumcise their sons or to follow Jewish customs. 22 What should we do now that our people have heard that you are here? 23 Please do what we ask, because four of our men have made special promises to God. 24 Join with them and prepare yourself for the ceremony that goes with the promises. Pay the cost for their heads to be shaved. Then everyone will learn that the reports about you are not true. They will know that you do obey the Law of Moses.

 

[pasifika]

Please read Genesis 17:14 (CEV)

The circumcision of the flesh is done by Christ now, NOT any other man or priest or whatever. ...Colossians 2:11...."In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision NOT PERFORMED BY HUMAN HANDS. Your whole body ruled by the flesh was put off when you circumcised by Christ....

No human hands will do circumcision as was in the time of Abraham or in old testament because ONLY CHRIST will do it Now!!!

Pall warn the new Christians in Galatia and Philippi regarding this circumcision of the flesh done by those who are still do the old way of circumcision as in the time of Abraham as a way to be righteous or to belong to Israel...

Philippians 3:2,3..."Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh.
For it is we (referring to the church) who are the circumcision, we who serve God by His Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh....

In verse 5,6...Paul tells the church the He followed all the requirements in the flesh as an Israelite eg, he was circumcise on 8th day, from tribe of Benjamin, and Hebrews of Hebrews, a Pharisee as for zeal etc...

verse 7&8...Paul consider all of those things above as a loss for the sake of Christ.

Galatians 5:11,12...Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision( which done by humans ), why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense on the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

 

[JLB777]

The type of ordinances Paul is referring to do not come from G-d! You can not change the "environment" or "context" of a word then keep the same meaning. The meanings of words change as you put them in different books, sentences and quote them from different authors. Ordinances or judgments in Deuteronomy are not the same as Paul is using in his HUMAN argument. Paul is writing about the law of commandments being CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES. Did Moses say that the law was being CONTAINED, limited or controlled?

Here’s the context -




Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
Ephesians 2:11-16


The middle wall that separated Jew from Gentile was the law of Moses, which forbid “uncircumcised” Gentiles to be a part of the commonwealth of Israel.


Now the law of Moses has been removed, and abolished in His flesh, so that from the two (Jew and Gentile) He could create one new man.

• having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

Case Closed.



JLB

 

[JLB777]

What is man made is your understanding of scripture. It doesn't matter which words you use, what matters most are their meanings. Your faith should be in agreement with G-d's law!

The law is not of faith.




JLB

 

[Gup20]

Paul is not arguing against circumcision;
Acts 21
19 Paul greeted them and told how God had used him to help the Gentiles. 20 Everyone who heard this praised God and said to Paul:My friend, you can see how many tens of thousands of the Jewish people have become followers! And all of them are eager to obey the Law of Moses. 21 But they have been told that you are teaching those who live among the Gentiles to disobey this Law. They claim that you are telling them not to circumcise their sons or to follow Jewish customs. 22 What should we do now that our people have heard that you are here? 23 Please do what we ask, because four of our men have made special promises to God. 24 Join with them and prepare yourself for the ceremony that goes with the promises. Pay the cost for their heads to be shaved. Then everyone will learn that the reports about you are not true. They will know that you do obey the Law of Moses.

If you had read one more verse, you would see that Paul only put a few "laws" on Gentiles:

Act 21:25
“But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.”​

As you can see, circumcision is not in the list. Paul is certainly and absolutely arguing against subjecting Gentiles to circumcision in Galatians.

[Gal 2:3-5 NASB] 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But [it was] because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter [had been] to the circumcised.

[Gal 5:6 NASB] 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

[Gal 6:15 NASB] 15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.​

Also we see other places where uncircumcision doesn't disqualify from being citizens of Israel in God's eyes:

[Eph 2:11-13, 19 NASB] 11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," [which is] performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12 [remember] that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. ... 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,​

 

[ralliann]

First you said you never read a version, you said there was no version and thought I posted my own ideas. Then you asked me for a version, now that you have a version of the bible, you don't like the version. Why don't you admit that you were wrong.

What???? I said I had never read such a version, which I had not. Then I asked if it was your interpretation of a version/ what version it was. It was a question. And my opinion of the version you quoted still stands for the reason I gave. Geesh chill
I was even specific as to what I was talking about with the phrase "Solemn promise", which is not in any underlying text that I have ever been aware of, either in Hebrew or Greek.

 

[Mercy74]

The circumcision of the flesh is done by Christ now, NOT any other man or priest or whatever. ...Colossians 2:11...."In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision NOT PERFORMED BY HUMAN HANDS. Your whole body ruled by the flesh was put off when you circumcised by Christ....

No human hands will do circumcision as was in the time of Abraham or in old testament because ONLY CHRIST will do it Now!!!

Pall warn the new Christians in Galatia and Philippi regarding this circumcision of the flesh done by those who are still do the old way of circumcision as in the time of Abraham as a way to be righteous or to belong to Israel...

Philippians 3:2,3..."Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh.
For it is we (referring to the church) who are the circumcision, we who serve God by His Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh....

In verse 5,6...Paul tells the church the He followed all the requirements in the flesh as an Israelite eg, he was circumcise on 8th day, from tribe of Benjamin, and Hebrews of Hebrews, a Pharisee as for zeal etc...

verse 7&8...Paul consider all of those things above as a loss for the sake of Christ.

Galatians 5:11,12...Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision( which done by humans ), why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense on the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

You claim that circumcision of the flesh is performed by Christ; so who circumcised Timothy? Paul the Pharisee is still preaching circumcision of the flesh.

 

[Mercy74]

What???? I said I had never read such a version, which I had not. Then I asked if it was your interpretation of a version/ what version it was. It was a question. And my opinion of the version you quoted still stands for the reason I gave. Geesh chill
I was even specific as to what I was talking about with the phrase "Solemn promise", which is not in any underlying text that I have ever been aware of, either in Hebrew or Greek.

You asked for a version; it is written.

 

[ralliann]

You asked for a version

Exactly, yes I did!

 

[Mercy74]

Here’s the context -




Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
Ephesians 2:11-16


The middle wall that separated Jew from Gentile was the law of Moses, which forbid “uncircumcised” Gentiles to be a part of the commonwealth of Israel.


Now the law of Moses has been removed, and abolished in His flesh, so that from the two (Jew and Gentile) He could create one new man.

• having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

Case Closed.



JLB

Where is it written that the law of Moses is abolished? Please read Matthew 5:17. The enmity is abolished; the law of commandments CONTAINED in ordinances, making peace.

 

[pasifika]

You claim that circumcision of the flesh is performed by Christ; so who circumcised Timothy? Paul the Pharisee is still preaching circumcision of the flesh.

Hello, the circumcision of the flesh in the time of Abraham is a "physical circumcision" done by human hands, but the circumcision of the same flesh (body) by Christ is a "spiritual circumcision" in which He put a new Spirit within our hearts....as in Ezekiel 36:26,27..."I will give you a new heart and put a new Spirit in you, I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh....

The circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16 was a physical circumcision done by Paul this is NOT an example of a spiritual circumcision in which Paul preached about later on in his journey....Paul circumcise Timothy Not because he believes it's has value to him, But because of the Jews who were there knowing that Timothy's father was a Greek....Acts 16:3


The circumcision done by humans is just removing an old skin for a new one But it doesn't change the sinful nature of the person, ie, lust, pride, etc
BUT putting a new heart and new Spirit within a person transform a person to a new one with godly nature...and that is the circumcision Paul is preaching....

 

[Mercy74]

If you had read one more verse, you would see that Paul only put a few "laws" on Gentiles:

Act 21:25
“But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.”​

As you can see, circumcision is not in the list. Paul is certainly and absolutely arguing against subjecting Gentiles to circumcision in Galatians.

[Gal 2:3-5 NASB] 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But [it was] because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter [had been] to the circumcised.

[Gal 5:6 NASB] 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

[Gal 6:15 NASB] 15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.​

Also we see other places where uncircumcision doesn't disqualify from being citizens of Israel in God's eyes:

[Eph 2:11-13, 19 NASB] 11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," [which is] performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12 [remember] that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. ... 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,​

Paul was circumcised on the 8th day; he circumcised Timothy. Do you know who Titus was? Was Titus a Jew or Greek? Paul the Pharisee did not write or say Acts 21:25. The "we" is not Paul. Paul the Pharisee obey the law and he teach others to do so, as all who heard his message were zealous for the law. Apparently people in those days like you thought Paul the Pharisee was teaching against Moses. So Paul submitted to a temple ritual to prove them wrong.

 

[Mercy74]

Paul was circumcised on the 8th day; he circumcised Timothy. Do you know who Titus was? Paul the Pharisee did not write or say Acts 21:25. The "we" is not Paul. Paul the Pharisee obey the law and he teach others to do so, as all who heard his message were zealous for the law. Apparently people in those days like you thought Paul the Pharisee was teaching against Moses. So Paul submitted to a temple ritual to prove them wrong.

The law is not of faith.




JLB

We know. On the contrary.

 

[JLB777]

Where is it written that the law of Moses is abolished? . The enmity is abolished; the law of commandments CONTAINED in ordinances, making peace.

So the truth comes out, finally.

You simply didn’t know that the law was abolished.

It makes sense now.

Someone taught you incorrectly and you believed them without verifying what the scriptures say.


Now, you are continuing to promote this heresy.


How many times must I quote the passage that so plainly says the law was abolished in His flesh, nailed to the cross and taken out of the way.


For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
Ephesians 2:14-16

Please read Matthew 5:17

The problem you have is you aren’t reading verse 18.


Jesus said the same thing.



“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17


Here’s the question -


Did Jesus fulfill the law, or did He fail to do what He came to do?



JLB

 

[JLB777]

We know. On the contrary.

No amount of twisting or adding words will change the truth.


The law is not of faith.


But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11:6




JLB