Lambano
Well-Known Member
- Jul 13, 2021
- 10,099
- 12,849
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
Does Grace replace the law?
- Thread starter LoveYeshua
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The irony disappears when we let Paul define what he means. In the same letter, Paul says, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing" (1 Cor. 7:19), which agrees with the decision of the apostles in Acts 15 that Gentile believers were not required to be circumcised.
Paul is not telling believers to ignore God. He is distinguishing between covenant signs given to Israel and the commandments of God fulfilled and taught under the New Covenant. That is why he can also write, "Neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Gal. 6:15) and "faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6).
If Genesis 17 and Leviticus 12 remain binding on all Christians, why did the apostles refuse to place circumcision on Gentile converts in Acts 15? The real question is not whether God's commandments matter, but which commandments Scripture says remain binding under the New Covenant.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2020
- 10,947
- 7,310
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
Circumcision is still binding on Christians. Both make and female! Because circumcision is no longer physical, but of the heart.
the commandments ans the rest of the law if Moses are distinct, the ten commandments are kept IN the ark of the Covenant, the rest of the law given to Moses OUTSIDE the ark. circumcision is not one of the ten commandments.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
- Feb 6, 2020
- 10,947
- 7,310
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
Paul is playing with words?
“28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 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. ”
Romans 2:28-29 KJV
Paul was not doing that. Paul also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditional has value if we obey the Torah (Romans 2:25-29), so the issue is that circumcision has no innate value and that its value is entirely derived from our obedience to the commands of God. Someone being physically circumcised is a sign of them having a circumcised heart, which is evident through our obedience to the Torah, so physical circumcision only has value insofar what it is a sign of is true. In Romans 2:17-29, Paul address those who call themselves Jews, so he was addressing Gentiles who had converted to being Jews through becoming physically circumcised but who were not obeying the Torah and he was making the point that being a Jew is not just about being physically circumcised but also about having a circumcised heart.
If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Act 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem, Council upheld the Torah by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.
Gentiles were covering to being Jews through becoming physically circumcised because they thought that it would give them a higher status, but they were not obeying the Torah, so they were missing the point that what matters is the commandments of God, which is why Paul was denying that Jews have a higher status when it comes to being in Christ. Christ set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah and those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6).
Someone having a circumcised heart only refers to them being a doer of the Torah (Deuteronomy 10:12-16) while someone having an uncircumcised heart only refers to them not being a doer of the Torah (Jeremiah 9:25). In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Torah and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Torah.
Circumcision of the heart existed in the OT, so there was no transition from physical to non-physical circumcision. Someone being physically circumcised is a sign of them having a circumcised heart, which is evident by their obedience to the Torah, so physical circumcision only has value insofar as what it is a sign of is true.
@Soyeong
I agree that Acts 15 directly addresses circumcision as a condition for salvation, but Paul's argument in Galatians goes further than that.
The issue is not why someone is circumcised. Paul repeatedly argues that circumcision itself is no longer the covenant marker that defines God's people.
In Galatians 5:2-6 Paul says that if someone receives circumcision, "Christ will be of no benefit to you" because they are placing themselves under obligation to keep the whole Law. He then concludes, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love." The contrast is not between circumcision for the wrong reason and circumcision for the right reason, but between the old covenant boundary marker and life in Christ.
Likewise, Galatians 6:15 says, "Neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." If circumcision remained a covenant obligation for Gentile believers, it is difficult to see how Paul could say it counts for nothing.
Timothy does not overturn this. Acts explicitly says Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews in those regions (Acts 16:3). Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother and had a unique ministry context among Jews. Paul refused to circumcise Titus, a Gentile, when circumcision was being demanded as a covenant requirement (Gal. 2:3-5). The contrast between Timothy and Titus shows Paul treated circumcision as a matter of mission strategy, not covenant obligation.
Regarding Exodus 12:48, the New Testament presents Christ as the fulfillment of Passover (1 Cor. 5:7). The apostles never instruct Gentile Christians to become circumcised in order to participate in the Lord's Supper, despite many opportunities to do so. That silence is significant.
The deeper question is whether the New Covenant expands Torah observance to all nations or whether it creates a new covenant people united by faith in Christ apart from the distinctive covenant signs given to Israel. Acts 15, Galatians, and the Jerusalem apostles consistently point to the latter.
In Galatians 5:2-6, Paul was speaking against circumcision for the purpose of becoming justified, not saying that it is no longer a marker that defines God's people. If God had saved the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt in order to put them under bondage to His Torah, then it would be for bondage that God sets us free, however, Galatians 5:1 says that it is for freedom that God sets us free, so you are not correctly identifying what Paul was speaking against. In Psalm 119:142, the Torah is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of the Torah that puts us into bondage while the truth sets us free. God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to the Torah all throughout the Bible, and even Jesus began his ministry with that Gospel message as a light to the Gentiles (Matthew 4:15-23), so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning against doing that and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we repent and believe the Gospel of Christ. In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, and it would again be absurd to think that he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace.
In Ephesians 2:10, we are new creations in Christ to do good works and the Torah is God's instructions for how to equip us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:15-17). While Paul said that circumcision counts for nothing, he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Torah (Romans 2:25-29), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derived from our obedience to the Torah. Someone being physically circumcised is a sign of them having a circumcised heart, which is evident by their obedience to the Torah, so physical circumcision only has value insofar as what it is a sign of is true. Some Gentiles were becoming circumcised because they thought it would given them a higher status or because they thought that it was the way to become saved, so Paul was pushing back against that.
The fact that there were reasons that Paul had Timothy circumcised shows that he was not speaking against circumcision for any reason, but just against circumcision for incorrect reasons. Paul was a servant of God, so he therefore should not be interpreted as speaking against obeying what He has commanded for the reasons that He commanded it.
In 1 Corinthians 5:8, Paul concluded that we should therefore continue to celebrate Passover. Silence does not give room for us to assume that servants of God were rebelling against what He has commanded.
Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example and the topic that they were discussing in Acts 15 was not whether followers of Christ should follow what he taught, but whether salvation is by circumcision (Acts 15:1) or by grace (Acts 15:11). In Acts 15:6-7, Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed the Gospel, which calls us to repent from our disobedience to the Torah (Matthew 4:15-23), so he was taking the side of the Pharisees from among the believers (Acts 15:5) against the men from Judea (Acts 15:1). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:8-9 that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, so again he was siding with the Pharisees. In Psalms 119:29-30, it shows the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so everything that he argued came down firmly on the side of the Pharisees. The heavy burden that no one could bear does not refer to the Torah, but to a means of salvation that is an alternative to salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision.The deeper question is whether the New Covenant expands Torah observance to all nations or whether it creates a new covenant people united by faith in Christ apart from the distinctive covenant signs given to Israel. Acts 15, Galatians, and the Jerusalem apostles consistently point to the latter.
@Soyeong
I think the difficulty with your position is that you consistently narrow Paul's statements to mean "circumcision for the purpose of justification," even where Paul's wording is broader.
For example, in Galatians 5:2-3 Paul does not say, "If you seek justification by circumcision." He says that if a person receives circumcision, he is obligated to keep the whole Law. The issue is that circumcision functions as entry into the covenantal framework of the Law.
Likewise, in Galatians 5:6 and 6:15 Paul concludes that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything in Christ. If circumcision remained a covenant obligation for Gentile believers, then it is difficult to understand why Paul repeatedly treats it as religiously irrelevant.
You argue that circumcision still remains obligatory but simply has no inherent value. Yet obligations derive their significance from God's command. If God still commands all Gentile believers to be circumcised, then circumcision cannot simultaneously be treated as a matter that "counts for nothing."
The Timothy example also does not establish obligation. Paul himself explains the reason: "because of the Jews who were in those places" (Acts 16:3). That is a missionary consideration. By contrast, when circumcision was being pressed as a covenant requirement upon Titus, Paul refused. The distinction Paul draws is between voluntary accommodation and religious obligation.
More fundamentally, Acts 15 never concludes by telling Gentiles to become circumcised later. If the Jerusalem Council believed circumcision remained a binding command on Gentile Christians, that was the perfect opportunity to say so. Instead, the apostles explicitly refuse to place that yoke upon them.
The question is not whether obedience matters. Every Christian agrees that it does. The question is whether the apostles taught that Gentile believers are under the Mosaic covenant's covenantal markers and obligations. The repeated conclusion of Acts 15, Galatians, Romans, and 1 Corinthians is that they are not.
I think the difficulty with your position is that you consistently narrow Paul's statements to mean "circumcision for the purpose of justification," even where Paul's wording is broader.
For example, in Galatians 5:2-3 Paul does not say, "If you seek justification by circumcision." He says that if a person receives circumcision, he is obligated to keep the whole Law. The issue is that circumcision functions as entry into the covenantal framework of the Law.
Likewise, in Galatians 5:6 and 6:15 Paul concludes that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything in Christ. If circumcision remained a covenant obligation for Gentile believers, then it is difficult to understand why Paul repeatedly treats it as religiously irrelevant.
You argue that circumcision still remains obligatory but simply has no inherent value. Yet obligations derive their significance from God's command. If God still commands all Gentile believers to be circumcised, then circumcision cannot simultaneously be treated as a matter that "counts for nothing."
The Timothy example also does not establish obligation. Paul himself explains the reason: "because of the Jews who were in those places" (Acts 16:3). That is a missionary consideration. By contrast, when circumcision was being pressed as a covenant requirement upon Titus, Paul refused. The distinction Paul draws is between voluntary accommodation and religious obligation.
More fundamentally, Acts 15 never concludes by telling Gentiles to become circumcised later. If the Jerusalem Council believed circumcision remained a binding command on Gentile Christians, that was the perfect opportunity to say so. Instead, the apostles explicitly refuse to place that yoke upon them.
The question is not whether obedience matters. Every Christian agrees that it does. The question is whether the apostles taught that Gentile believers are under the Mosaic covenant's covenantal markers and obligations. The repeated conclusion of Acts 15, Galatians, Romans, and 1 Corinthians is that they are not.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
The written contents of the Ten Commandments were kept both inside and outside the ark.
Why was the original kept inside the ark of the covenant? and called Ark OF THE COVENANT? Why was the Mercy seat placed on top of it and GOD appeared on in top of it? why did a priest sprinkle blood on tip of it once per year? did not God write these commandments himself on the stone tables? had not God declare them Holy?The written contents of the Ten Commandments were kept both inside and outside the ark.
the Ark and its contents is most Holy. only a very few could enter the sacred place and none could touch it except when directed by God directly.
to me its evident they the ten commandments have a special status in the eyes of God. even in the book of revelations it was seen in heaven in the future. these commandments and how to follow them properly was what Jesus taught and asked us to keep, I should not have to even mention this its written all over the bible.
Similar threads
