All things written may be fulfilled

[rwb]

The council at Jerusalem decided that believing Gentiles didn’t have the same burden as believing Jews, they all agreed on that. That was what was decided, not that believing Jews were relieved of any burdens, that wasn’t discussed. We don’t have a list of exactly what burdens a believing Jew had after the cross, only a list of what the Gentiles burdens were.

The Jews of true faith were not distracted from Christ by being burdened by the Old law that Christ had fulfilled through His crucifixion and resurrection. What do you believe this burden for Jews and not Gentiles was? The only burden (and I use that word because it's what you use) ALL people of faith have when they have been born again is to live our lives in faith of Christ, seeking to bring glory and honor to God in all that we speak and do. That's why there was this contention, not from Jewish Christians, but from Judaizers seeking to draw people away from the simplicity that is found in Christ.

We can surmise from Acts 21:21-22 that circumcision was a burden that the Jews had after the cross, because James calls out Paul on the issue in 59AD, 29 years after the cross.

As long as the Old Temple and city remained standing those calling themselves believers in Christ thinking they must still be obedient to the Law of Moses carried this burden not by necessity but by choice. Refusing to depart from the Old ceremonial and sacrificial laws and embrace the New Covenant through Christ continued until the destruction that likely brought death to many of them because they had not truly been converted to Christianity.

Whether we agree or disagree with the burdens of the Jews and what was happening during that time, we should at least admit it was taking place. We can say James should’ve told the Jews they weren’t under the burden of circumcision but instead he called out Paul’s preaching to the Jews about it, but we shouldn’t try to make it sound like these things never happened.

Yes, I agree that some Jews professing to be of Christ still continued to be burdened by the Old law. But according to Paul those who continued to believe that circumcision according to the law of Moses was still in effect after the advent of Christ were only Jews outwardly, making a show of the law, but inwardly they were not Jews of faith. Because Jews of faith understood true circumcision is not of the outward flesh but inwardly of the heart and that circumcision of the flesh was only profitable when they kept the WHOLE law.

Romans 2:25-29 (KJV) For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You Run From The Questions, Because You Can't Refute God's Words Of Truth Below

1.) What is the reason why you deny (The Day Of The Lord) takes place (The End) in Zechariah 14?

2.) What is the reason why you deny the Lord returns to the Mt of Olives?

3.) What is the reason why you deny the Lord is seen returning with all the saints?

4.) What is the reason why you deny the eternal river of life is seen flowing from Jerusalem?

5.) What is the reason why you deny the Lord's fire judgement consuming men's, eyes, tongues, flesh, as they stand on their feet? Luke 17:29-30KJV

Zechariah 14:1-12KJV
1 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

I don't deny anything except for your false interpretations of scripture. Explain to me again how you think Zechariah 14:16-21 will be fulfilled in the future. I need another laugh.

 

[grafted branch]

The Jews of true faith were not distracted from Christ by being burdened by the Old law that Christ had fulfilled through His crucifixion and resurrection. What do you believe this burden for Jews and not Gentiles was?

Let me ask you this …

Do you believe James was a Jew of true faith or was he only a Jew outwardly?

 

[grafted branch]

The Jews of true faith were not distracted from Christ by being burdened by the Old law that Christ had fulfilled through His crucifixion and resurrection. What do you believe this burden for Jews and not Gentiles was?

Let me ask you this …

Do you believe James was a Jew of true faith or was he only a Jew outwardly?

Let me help you out, if James was only a Jew outwardly the epistle he wrote probably shouldn’t have be included in the Canon. I doubt anyone’s going to make that argument.

That leaves us with the issue of why James confronted Paul about teaching all the Jews which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, (Paul) telling them that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Either it was still a “mystery” to James or James deliberately went against Paul’s teaching on circumcision. Which do you think a true faith Jew might do?

 

[David in NJ]

The council at Jerusalem decided that believing Gentiles didn’t have the same burden as believing Jews, they all agreed on that. That was what was decided, not that believing Jews were relieved of any burdens, that wasn’t discussed. We don’t have a list of exactly what burdens a believing Jew had after the cross, only a list of what the Gentiles burdens were.

We can surmise from Acts 21:21-22 that circumcision was a burden that the Jews had after the cross, because James calls out Paul on the issue in 59AD, 29 years after the cross.

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

Whether we agree or disagree with the burdens of the Jews and what was happening during that time, we should at least admit it was taking place. We can say James should’ve told the Jews they weren’t under the burden of circumcision but instead he called out Paul’s preaching to the Jews about it, but we shouldn’t try to make it sound like these things never happened.

Now, did Hebrews 9:8 apply to James, at least in the aspect of circumcision, while the earthly temple at Jerusalem still stood? I would think that was a definite possibility unless you can come up with another reason as to why James called out Paul about circumcision.

Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

There is only One Gospel = SAME for the JEW and the GENTILE

Acts is not about Jew versus Gentile obligations.

Acts is about the Same HOLY SPIRIT for the Jew and the Gentile

CHRIST/Gospel joins the Jew & the Gentile Together into One Body of CHRIST

 

[grafted branch]

There is only One Gospel = SAME for the JEW and the GENTILE

Acts is not about Jew versus Gentile obligations.

Acts is about the Same HOLY SPIRIT for the Jew and the Gentile

CHRIST/Gospel joins the Jew & the Gentile Together into One Body of CHRIST

I never said there was more than one Gospel. I’ve suggested that some things were still a “mystery” to those who continued to worship in the temple at Jerusalem. How about you give your explanation of why James confronted Paul about circumcision in Acts 21.

 

[David in NJ]

I never said there was more than one Gospel. I’ve suggested that some things were still a “mystery” to those who continued to worship in the temple at Jerusalem. How about you give your explanation of why James confronted Paul about circumcision in Acts 21.

Easy

Did you read Acts ch21?

Have you read all of Acts?

Have you read all of the Scriptures beginning in Genesis?

 

[grafted branch]

Easy

Did you read Acts ch21?

Have you read all of Acts?

Have you read all of the Scriptures beginning in Genesis?

Ok, thanks for that informative answer.

 

[David in NJ]

Ok, thanks for that informative answer.

Too many people on here that have not a full/complete understanding of Scripture for the simple fact they have not read and prayed and studied and read and prayed............

James is silent in Acts 21 EXCEPT for:
When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us joyfully. 18The next day Paul went in with us to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and recounted one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20When they heard this, they glorified God. Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs. 22What then should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.

What is the outcome of Acts ch21???

 

[grafted branch]

What is the outcome of Acts ch21???

The outcome is that James suggests Paul join with some others in a Nazarite vow that includes a sacrifice (see Numbers 6:1-21). Paul agrees to it but doesn’t complete the vow because Paul is arrested. Notice the Jews have no issues with whatever James was teaching, only with what Paul was teaching, that would be very strange if they were both teaching the same thing.

I know James confronts Paul because of Paul’s teaching but that doesn’t answer the question of why would James confront Paul at all. When we agree with someone we don’t have a confrontation with them, we would have the confrontation with those who disagree with us. James doesn’t have a confrontation with the Jews, he confronted Paul. So, looking at Acts 21 we have every reason to think James disagrees with what Paul was teaching and asks Paul to take the Nazarite vow in an attempt to show that Paul does abide by the same burden the rest of the Jews were under.

If both James and Paul were in agreement (you said One Gospel = SAME for the JEW and the GENTILE) then we can conclude that it’s perfectly acceptable for individuals in our current church to take a Nazarite vow and conclude it with a sacrifice. Anyone doing that in your church? If not, then why not, after all both James and Paul agreed to it.

 

[David in NJ]

The outcome is that James suggests Paul join with some others in a Nazarite vow that includes a sacrifice (see Numbers 6:1-21). Paul agrees to it but doesn’t complete the vow because Paul is arrested. Notice the Jews have no issues with whatever James was teaching, only with what Paul was teaching, that would be very strange if they were both teaching the same thing.

I know James confronts Paul because of Paul’s teaching but that doesn’t answer the question of why would James confront Paul at all. When we agree with someone we don’t have a confrontation with them, we would have the confrontation with those who disagree with us. James doesn’t have a confrontation with the Jews, he confronted Paul. So, looking at Acts 21 we have every reason to think James disagrees with what Paul was teaching and asks Paul to take the Nazarite vow in an attempt to show that Paul does abide by the same burden the rest of the Jews were under.

If both James and Paul were in agreement (you said One Gospel = SAME for the JEW and the GENTILE) then we can conclude that it’s perfectly acceptable for individuals in our current church to take a Nazarite vow and conclude it with a sacrifice. Anyone doing that in your church? If not, then why not, after all both James and Paul agreed to it.

Paul is arrested. Notice the Jews have no issues with whatever James was teaching, only with what Paul was teaching, that would be very strange if they were both teaching the same thing.

James did not give a teaching in Acts nor in the Book of James on this subject = God did not permit him.

James did not "confront" Paul in the way you are suggesting and the HOLY SPIRIT makes this crystal clear in Scripture.

If both James and Paul were in agreement (you said One Gospel = SAME for the JEW and the GENTILE) then we can conclude that it’s perfectly acceptable for individuals in our current church to take a Nazarite vow and conclude it with a sacrifice.

Paul and James preached the SAME Gospel = there is only One Gospel

James was limited on his understanding of the 'SCOPE' of the Gospel which was just beginning with Paul.
The Apostle John knew the full SCOPE of the Gospel along with Paul - Peter tried to keep his feet on both sides of the fence.

The HOLY SPIRIT confronted Peter on this as well as James and all others who were holding unto Moses.

 

[grafted branch]

James was limited on his understanding of the 'SCOPE' of the Gospel which was just beginning with Paul.

Alright, can we agree then that it was still some kind of “mystery” to James about what Paul preached concerning circumcision?

 

[David in NJ]

Alright, can we agree then that it was still some kind of “mystery” to James about what Paul preached concerning circumcision?

AGREE

 

[grafted branch]

AGREE

Great!

Acts 21 takes place in approximately 59AD. Acts 15 in approximately 48-49AD.

Would it be reasonable to think that at the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 15, that at that time it was decided that circumcision was one of the burdens the Jews had that was not to be put on the Gentiles?

 

[rwb]

Let me help you out, if James was only a Jew outwardly the epistle he wrote probably shouldn’t have be included in the Canon. I doubt anyone’s going to make that argument.

That leaves us with the issue of why James confronted Paul about teaching all the Jews which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, (Paul) telling them that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Either it was still a “mystery” to James or James deliberately went against Paul’s teaching on circumcision. Which do you think a true faith Jew might do?

Questions regarding the law of Moses did not come into question among the Jews in Jerusalem. At the beginning when the Church was young there were many Jewish Christians who continued to be zealous regarding the law. The problem wasn't that these early Christians continued in the law while teaching in the Jewish Synagogues. Where they still observed the law of Moses. The reference here is to the law respecting circumcision, sacrifices, distinctions of meats and days, festivals, etc. It may seem strange that they still continued to observe those rites, since it was the design of Christianity to abolish them. But remember, those rites had been appointed by God, and that they were taught to observe them their whole life. The apostles conformed to them while in Jerusalem that they would not set themselves against the Jews, but like Paul, became as a Jew that some of them might be saved. At this early age of the Church, violence, rather than preaching repentance and remission of sins through Christ would have arisen against the apostles if the apostles had insisted, as they did with Gentile believers, that salvation was not be obtained through obedience to the law of Moses, and that one might only be saved by faith in Christ.

Since repentance and remission of sins by grace through faith in Christ began first to be preached in Jerusalem, had violence erupted at the very beginning by the Jews who believed and were still zealous for the law the early disciples might have been killed before preaching to all nations.

Luke 24:47 (KJV) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

[rwb]

Great!

Acts 21 takes place in approximately 59AD. Acts 15 in approximately 48-49AD.

Would it be reasonable to think that at the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 15, that at that time it was decided that circumcision was one of the burdens the Jews had that was not to be put on the Gentiles?

It was only a burden to Jews who continued to believe Jews could find favor with God through obedience to the law of Moses. Since the law of Moses was never given to Gentiles, that the Jews tried to put this burden upon them proved these Jews had not yet fully submitted to faith in Christ alone.

 

[David in NJ]

Great!

Acts 21 takes place in approximately 59AD. Acts 15 in approximately 48-49AD.

Would it be reasonable to think that at the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 15, that at that time it was decided that circumcision was one of the burdens the Jews had that was not to be put on the Gentiles?

Reasonable before the council = AGREE

UN-reasonable before GOD = ABSOLUTELY

Thus the HOLY SPIRIT Steps IN to assure the Integrity of the GOSPEL, apart from the law of Moses, to ALL nations = Acts chapter 10

 

[grafted branch]

It was only a burden to Jews who continued to believe Jews could find favor with God through obedience to the law of Moses. Since the law of Moses was never given to Gentiles,

Ok, I agree, and I think that was the case up until 70AD when the temple got destroyed. That doesn’t necessarily prove any end time view but I would say that is what Hebrews 8:13 talking about when it says that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Vanishing away happening in 70AD.

the Jews tried to put this burden upon them proved these Jews had not yet fully submitted to faith in Christ alone.

This part I would put it as it was still a mystery to the Jews who submitted to faith in Christ alone. We can’t know the details of their faith.

 

[rwb]

Great!

Acts 21 takes place in approximately 59AD. Acts 15 in approximately 48-49AD.

Would it be reasonable to think that at the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 15, that at that time it was decided that circumcision was one of the burdens the Jews had that was not to be put on the Gentiles?

What should have been apparent to these first Jewish Christians is the FACT that Gentiles who never submitted to the law of Moses had been saved when they believed in Christ is PROOF the law of Moses was no longer beneficial for those who desire to be saved by God! While it's true that Jews who professed Christ continued to submit to the laws of Old until 70 AD when it became impossible, it is also true that had they fully submitted to Christ according to faith alone, they, like the apostles would have understood the Old was gone forever with the advent of Christ, and the only way that man could be saved is through submission to faith in Christ.

 

[grafted branch]

While it's true that Jews who professed Christ continued to submit to the laws of Old until 70 AD when it became impossible, it is also true that had they fully submitted to Christ according to faith alone, they, like the apostles would have understood the Old was gone forever with the advent of Christ, and the only way that man could be saved is through submission to faith in Christ.

But not all the apostles fully understood that the Old was gone forever with the advent of Christ until many years after the cross, as evidenced by James.

If someone were to say the law ended at the cross, that wouldn’t be the case then, right? We can only say the law became invalid at the cross and ended in 70AD.