Galatians 5:1–6: Is Paul Cutting off the Circumcised?

Greetings newton2005,

newton3005 said:

There are two ironies here, or maybe an irony and a half if you will. Paul himself was circumcised, as he attested to in Philippians 3:3–5.

Click to expand...

What Paul is arguing against is the claim by many Judaisers who taught the necessity of the new Gentile believers to be circumcised. I consider that the Letter to the Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Conference where this issue was finally settled.

Kind regards
Trevor

newton3005 said:

Galatians 5:1–6 seems enigmatic at first glance. Towards the beginning, Verses 2-4 says “Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

Click to expand...

Seems... like those are contradictions in Scripture, right? They really are not.

After Christ's death and resurrection there was a 'change' in the law, specifically what Lord Jesus nailed to His cross, which were the handwriting of ordinances in the law (Col. 2). Before His crucifixion, the Jews, including Paul, were still under the old covenant and law.

It's especially important to remember that God gave the Promise by Faith, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, first to Abraham, which was 430 years before the giving of the law through Moses. Thus Faith was always first. Then God gave Abraham the sign of circumcision as a symbol after Abraham had believed The Gospel by Faith. Paul is showing that difference between Faith and the law. Faith is about belief on God's Promised Savior and a not earned salvation; instead it is a free gift for those who believe. The law involves seeking to use works to be saved.

newton3005 said:

Huh? There are two ironies here, or maybe an irony and a half if you will. Paul himself was circumcised, as he attested to in Philippians 3:3–5. Not only that, he admits he was a Pharisee, the type of person that Jesus dislikes.

Click to expand...

Paul was circumcised as a Jew prior to the crucifixion. Do you not remember that Paul (Saul) was one of the Pharisees that held the coats of those who stoned the Christian prophet Stephen?

Also, Lord Jesus was not against all Pharisees. Many brethren don't read their Old Testament histories to discover just which peoples Lord Jesus rebuked among the Pharisees. They were crept in unawares of the Canaanite nations that dwelt among Israel, and slowly worked their way into the temple as Nethinims, and some as priests. The scribes were foreigners of the Kenites, a people of the land of Canaan (Gen.15; 1 Chronicles 2:55). They were in charge of keeping copies of the letters of God's Word from generation to generation. They followed Jesus around with those certain Pharisee crept in unawares, seeking something against Him to have Him murdered. This is why Jesus said the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat (seat of the law). Nicodemus who visited Jesus in secret, and contributed spices for Jesus' burial, was a Pharisee.

newton3005 said:

The second irony, or maybe not totally an irony, is that Jesus was circumcised, as it says in Luke 2:21. It may not be totally ironic, though. Jesus was sent on a mission which involved living among the Jews, and it may not be far-fetched to believe that he wanted to make sure he cold fit in with the Hebrews in order to relate to them. Unlike Paul, then, seems that Jesus had an ulterior motive for his own circumcision that wasn’t necessarily related to pursuance of the Law directly. One might say that Paul ended up not accepting his circumcision, since from his own words he may not have fallen from the grace of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Once again, their circumcision was determined by the two covenants. Until the New Covenant would come through Christ's death and resurrection, they were still under the old covenant which required flesh circumcision. Simple.

Lord Jesus Himself being born of the tribe of Judah, also was required to do it under the old covenant prior to His Ministry. So it had nothing to do with His wanting to appear to fit in. If He had not have gotten circumcised, being a Jew of the tribe of Judah, He would have been breaking His Own law given through the old covenant. You're just not thinking.

newton3005 said:

Yet at the end of Galatians 5:1–6, Verse 6, says “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” He seems to spare the circumcised here, who, like himself, has turned to faith through Jesus and holds him above the Law. But yet another irony here is that Jesus, in Matthew 5:17-18, says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Click to expand...

And what Lord Jesus said is true. Not one iota, jot, or tittle will pass from the law until all is accomplished. But that does not mean nothing... has been accomplished yet. Jesus nailed the handwriting of ordinances in the law to His cross, as written. In Christ we are no longer held to the blood ordinances, various washing rituals, ceremonial worship, Levitical priesthood nor any like it, etc., etc. But God's law in judgments and statutes still stand today, including for those in Christ (i.e., those things Apostle Paul covered in 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Cor.6 from the law). Galatians 5 also gives a short list of those things in God's law that are about walking by the flesh.

newton3005 said:

What does Paul have to say to say to that? Well, in Verse 3 of Galatians 5:1–6 he says, “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” Here, he seems to be in agreement with James 2:10 which says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” Is Galatians 5:1–6 supposed to serve as a warning that those who attempt to abide by all 500-plus Laws of the Old Testament and fails is doomed to be sent away from God’s Grace through Jesus? Well, another irony. That seems unlikely since Paul, like everyone under the son who pursued abiding by all the laws, may not have kept all the Laws, even as a Pharisee, yet he sees himself as possibly gaining acceptance of Jesus’ grace. If not him, why not the rest?

Click to expand...

You should easily be able to tell the different between those who seek to be justified by keeping the law vs. those who are justified by accepting the Promise by Faith of The Gospel. Those who think to be saved by law-keeping disregard Faith.

1. Paul was a special case. The fact that Lord Jesus directly... intervened with Paul on the road to Damascus shows that Jesus already owned Paul as one of His elect chosen ones. It just was not yet time until that moment to bring Paul into the ministry, regardless of what he was doing at the time (hunting down Christians). Jesus even said that Paul was His "chosen vessel" in Acts 9.

2. Christ Jesus made Paul fully understand his position, and the difference of what he had been working for the Pharisees. Paul was devout. And he was trained under the best Hebrew scholar of his day, Gamaliel. Makes sense then that Jesus would use Paul to write the majority of the Books of The New Testament.

3. Paul understood from God's prophecy through Isaiah about His putting temporary blindness upon the majority of the Jews. It was later revealed why; so The Gospel would also go to the gentiles (See Romans 11). Paul told the Gentiles in Christ to not be conceited about having received The Gospel while the majority of Jews are still spiritually blinded by God away from The Gospel. It is because when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, God will remove their blindness, and then they will confess Christ Jesus and be saved.

newton3005 said:

Galatians 5:1–6 seems enigmatic at first glance. Towards the beginning, Verses 2-4 says “Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

Huh? There are two ironies here, or maybe an irony and a half if you will. Paul himself was circumcised, as he attested to in Philippians 3:3–5. Not only that, he admits he was a Pharisee, the type of person that Jesus dislikes. The second irony, or maybe not totally an irony, is that Jesus was circumcised, as it says in Luke 2:21. It may not be totally ironic, though. Jesus was sent on a mission which involved living among the Jews, and it may not be far-fetched to believe that he wanted to make sure he cold fit in with the Hebrews in order to relate to them. Unlike Paul, then, seems that Jesus had an ulterior motive for his own circumcision that wasn’t necessarily related to pursuance of the Law directly. One might say that Paul ended up not accepting his circumcision, since from his own words he may not have fallen from the grace of Jesus.

Yet at the end of Galatians 5:1–6, Verse 6, says “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” He seems to spare the circumcised here, who, like himself, has turned to faith through Jesus and holds him above the Law. But yet another irony here is that Jesus, in Matthew 5:17-18, says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

What does Paul have to say to say to that? Well, in Verse 3 of Galatians 5:1–6 he says, “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.” Here, he seems to be in agreement with James 2:10 which says, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” Is Galatians 5:1–6 supposed to serve as a warning that those who attempt to abide by all 500-plus Laws of the Old Testament and fails is doomed to be sent away from God’s Grace through Jesus? Well, another irony. That seems unlikely since Paul, like everyone under the son who pursued abiding by all the laws, may not have kept all the Laws, even as a Pharisee, yet he sees himself as possibly gaining acceptance of Jesus’ grace. If not him, why not the rest?

Click to expand...

It is important the recognize that a servant of God can speak against obeying God for an incorrect reason without speaking against obeying God. In Isaiah 45:17, it says that all Israel shall be be saved, which has led some to hold the position that the way that a Gentile become saves is by becoming circumcised (Jewish), which is a position that Paul was strongly opposed to, and which he referred to by the phrase "works of the law". If God has saved the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt in order to put them under bondage to His law, 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 it is important to correctly identify what Paul was speaking against. In Psalm 119:142, the Law of God is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of the Law of God that puts us into bondage while the truth sets us free.

If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised (Jewish) in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of God by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason.

God wanted His children to repent and to return to obedience to His law all throughout the Bible and even Christ began his ministry with that Gospel message (Matthew 4:15-23), so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as a servant of God warning us against obeying Him and warning 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 His law, 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 interpret this as him wanting God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of God by word and by example and Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to follow what Christ taught but with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised (Jewish) in order to become justified.

In Galatians 5:6, Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is faith working through love, and in 1 Corinthians 7:19, he said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is obeying the commandments of God, so he equated faith working through love with obeying the commandments of God, and indeed, Paul said in Romans 331 that our faith upholds the Law of God and in Galatians 5:14, he said that love fulfills the law. Paul also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2), and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Law of God (Romans 2:25). In Romans 2:17-29, Paul addressed those who call themselves Jews, so he was addressing Gentiles who had become circumcised and were now calling themselves Jews, but who were not following the Law of God and he was making the point that being a Jew is not just about being physically circumcised but also about having a circumcised heart, which is evident through our obedience to the Law of God. So the issue is that someone being physically circumcised is a sign of them having a circumcised heart, so it only has value insofar as what it is a sign of is true.

Davy said:

Seems... like those are contradictions in Scripture, right? They really are not.

After Christ's death and resurrection there was a 'change' in the law, specifically what Lord Jesus nailed to His cross, which were the handwriting of ordinances in the law (Col. 2). Before His crucifixion, the Jews, including Paul, were still under the old covenant and law.

Click to expand...

God's character traits are eternal, therefore any instructions that God has given for how to embody His character traits are also eternal. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalm 119:160), but if the way to embody God's righteousness were to ever change such as with it becoming sinful to do charity, then God's righteousness would not be eternal.

In Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten ordinance to Christ's cross that announced the charge that was against him, which fits perfectly with the concept of the handwritten ordinance that announced the charges that were against us being nailed to Christ's cross instead and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with nailing any laws to the cross so that we can become doers of what they revealed to wickedness. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Law of God but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to have faith in what Jesus accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of God

Davy said:

It's especially important to remember that God gave the Promise by Faith, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, first to Abraham, which was 430 years before the giving of the law through Moses. Thus Faith was always first. Then God gave Abraham the sign of circumcision as a symbol after Abraham had believed The Gospel by Faith. Paul is showing that difference between Faith and the law. Faith is about belief on God's Promised Savior and a not earned salvation; instead it is a free gift for those who believe. The law involves seeking to use works to be saved.

Click to expand...

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of God was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which was in accordance with him being sent as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26), which was the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), and which he spread to those in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5).

In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that he has promised. In Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the heaven, to his children He will give all of these lands, and through his children all of the nations of the earth shall be blessed because he heard God's voice and guarded His charge, commandment's statutes, and laws. In Deuteronomy 30:16, if the children of Abraham will love God with all of their hearts by walking in His way in obedience to His commandments, statutes, and laws, then they will live and multiply and God will bless them in the land that they go to posses. So the promise was made to Abraham and brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, and taught his children and those of his household to do that in accordance with spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace. Abraham did not just mentally affirm the promise, but rather he believed it by actively spreading the Gospel by teaching repentance and obedience to the Law of God.

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 His law, 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. We can't earn our salvation or our righteousness even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of God because it was never given as a way of earning them in the first place, but rather this is the free gift for all who believe.

Davy said:

Paul was circumcised as a Jew prior to the crucifixion. Do you not remember that Paul (Saul) was one of the Pharisees that held the coats of those who stoned the Christian prophet Stephen?

Click to expand...

In Acts 6:13, it states that false witnesses accused Stephen of teaching against obeying the Law of God.

Davy said:

Once again, their circumcision was determined by the two covenants. Until the New Covenant would come through Christ's death and resurrection, they were still under the old covenant which required flesh circumcision. Simple.

Click to expand...

The New Covenant still involves following Christ's example of walking in obedience to the Law of God (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Davy said:

And what Lord Jesus said is true. Not one iota, jot, or tittle will pass from the law until all is accomplished. But that does not mean nothing... has been accomplished yet. Jesus nailed the handwriting of ordinances in the law to His cross, as written. In Christ we are no longer held to the blood ordinances, various washing rituals, ceremonial worship, Levitical priesthood nor any like it, etc., etc. But God's law in judgments and statutes still stand today, including for those in Christ (i.e., those things Apostle Paul covered in 1 Timothy 1 and 1 Cor.6 from the law). Galatians 5 also gives a short list of those things in God's law that are about walking by the flesh.

Click to expand...

Rather, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6).

Soyeong said:

God's character traits are eternal, therefore any instructions that God has given for how to embody His character traits are also eternal. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalm 119:160), but if the way to embody God's righteousness were to ever change such as with it becoming sinful to do charity, then God's righteousness would not be eternal.

Click to expand...

I recognize the above as a 'prep' for what you're getting ready to present here, which I cannot fully agree with...

Soyeong said:

In Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten ordinance to Christ's cross that announced the charge that was against him, which fits perfectly with the concept of the handwritten ordinance that announced the charges that were against us being nailed to Christ's cross instead and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with nailing any laws to the cross so that we can become doers of what they revealed to wickedness. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Law of God but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to have faith in what Jesus accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of God

Click to expand...

Was Paul speaking of a wood sign nailed to Christ's cross about some imaginary law done away with in the following?

Col 2:13-14
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
KJV

NO, Paul was speaking of ordinances in God's law, literally, not spiritually. To call Paul a liar in that means wanting to still support animal sacrifice instead of recognizing Christ's Sacrifice. It means one who desires the bondage of wanting to be justified by law keeping, which is impossible.

Soyeong said:

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of God was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace, which was in accordance with him being sent as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26), which was the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), and which he spread to those in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5).

Click to expand...

So animal sacrifices are still justified since repentance of sins was required in the Old Testament law? You're treading down a very DARK PATH in case you don't know it.

Soyeong said:

In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that he has promised. In Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the heaven, to his children He will give all of these lands, and through his children all of the nations of the earth shall be blessed because he heard God's voice and guarded His charge, commandment's statutes, and laws.

Click to expand...

Whoops! You just ADDED to God's Word about the Promise given to Abraham. And wow! You have many on this forum fooled, and even me part of the time, but it now comes out, you are an orthodox JEW in hiding here pushing bondage back to the law!

Didn't you read what Apostle Paul called the Promise in Galatians? Paul called it the "promise by faith of Jesus Christ" (Gal.3:22). THAT... was the Promise which God gave Abraham, and Abraham believed, and Abraham's FAITH was counted as righteousness. It was not about any LAW KEEPING by Abraham, that you ADDED to that Promise.

newton3005 said:

Galatians 5:1–6: Is Paul Cutting off the Circumcised? Is Galatians 5:1–6 supposed to serve as a warning that those who attempt to abide by all 500-plus Laws of the Old Testament and fails is doomed to be sent away from God’s Grace through Jesus?

Click to expand...

It's all about what do you rely on. We rely on the blood of Jesus Christ and his grace extending to us. PERIOD. FULL STOP. We don't rely on our own virtue, like being circumcised or any other works. It's another way of saying you cannot please God without faith (meaning faith in him, not in ourselves).

It's a little silly to suppose we can violate every commandment, every expressed will of God but point to our penis and say, look what my parents did to my body part when I was 8 days old, it makes my sin AOK. Circumcision was supposed to symbolize our fidelity to God, not replace it.

Greetings Wrangler,

Wrangler said:

It's all about what do you rely on. We rely on the blood of Jesus Christ and his grace extending to us. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

Click to expand...

Sounds nice and almost absolutely conclusive, but it would be interesting to consider 10 different people as to what this really represents in belief and practice such as the way of life each of these 10 different people actually reveal.

Kind regards
Trevor

TrevorHL said:

Greetings Wrangler,

Sounds nice and almost absolutely conclusive, but it would be interesting to consider 10 different people as to what this really represents in belief and practice such as the way of life each of these 10 different people actually reveal.

Kind regards
Trevor

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t get too wrapped up in any semantic differences. The first divine attribute, the eye of the camel is humility. We either rely on God or are guilty of some kind of IDOLATRY.

We are grafted into God’s chosen people. That’s what this thread is about. In part, this too requires humility for God loves the Jews, Jesus was a Jew who only preached to the Jews and was sent to primarily save the Jews. The only reason God extended grace to us Gentiles is to make the Jews jealous and so return to their God through his Anointed one.

It takes humility to recognize the limits of equality. Yes, we are equal to God’s original children in some way. In some ways we are not equal. And I’m OK with that. Jesus said what is it to us if John is to live forever?

We need to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Greetings again Wrangler,

Wrangler said:

I wouldn’t get too wrapped up in any semantic differences. The first divine attribute, the eye of the camel is humility. We either rely on God or are guilty of some kind of IDOLATRY.

Click to expand...

A reasonable statement, but getting back to your original statement

Wrangler said:

It's all about what do you rely on. We rely on the blood of Jesus Christ and his grace extending to us. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

Click to expand...

Humility may require a quiet, honest consideration of what "the blood of Jesus Christ" represents. Is this blood in any way a fulfilment of the Burnt, Trespass, Sin, and Peace Offerings under the Law? Is it only the Blood that is important or do we also consider the passages the speak of Jesus offering his body, and offering himself?

Wrangler said:

The only reason God extended grace to us Gentiles is to make the Jews jealous and so return to their God through his Anointed one.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are putting too much weight on one aspect of what Paul is saying in Romans 11. What about the following?:
John 3:16 (KJV): For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Kind regards
Trevor

Thank you Trevor for your thoughtful questions.

TrevorHL said:

Humility may require a quiet, honest consideration of what "the blood of Jesus Christ" represents. Is this blood in any way a fulfilment of the Burnt, Trespass, Sin, and Peace Offerings under the Law? Is it only the Blood that is important or do we also consider the passages the speak of Jesus offering his body, and offering himself?

Click to expand...

I’m not sure of the dichotomy you’re presenting in a deep analysis of OT covenants flowing into the ministry of our Lord. My point is foundational, the beginning of such an analysis.

The humility should come from blood having to be shed on account of our inequities - animal or man. The next thing is the impossible to comprehend one man permanently taking our inequities from continuously using animals for each new transgression.

TrevorHL said:

Perhaps you are putting too much weight on one aspect of what Paul is saying in Romans 11. What about the following?:
John 3:16 (KJV): For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Again, I was making a simple point. I hardly ever even attempt to make comprehensive analyses pulling together all possible verses. Brevity is the sound of wit.

Greetings again Wrangler,

Wrangler said:

I’m not sure of the dichotomy you’re presenting in a deep analysis of OT covenants flowing into the ministry of our Lord.

Click to expand...

I suggest that the language of the NT flows from much of the OT, even from the Garden of Eden.

Wrangler said:

My point is foundational, the beginning of such an analysis.
The humility should come from blood having to be shed on account of our inequities - animal or man.

Click to expand...

Such a concept without some reasonable understanding could be based upon pagan rituals and practices and as such is a form of idolatry.

Wrangler said:

The next thing is the impossible to comprehend one man permanently taking our inequities from continuously using animals for each new transgression.

Click to expand...

Again "impossible to comprehend"? I suggest that the Bible teaching is that Jesus died as our representative in order to reverse the sentence of death placed upon Adam and his descendants, while the usual assessment that Jesus died as our substitute is based upon paganism and idolatry.

Wrangler said:

Hmmm. Again, I was making a simple point.

Click to expand...

Putting too much weight on one concept results in an error. You stated "the only reason".

Kind regards
Trevor

One of things that stuck with me from reading the "New Perspective on Paul" writers like NT Wright, Richard Hays, Krister Stendahl, J.D.G. Dunn et al (but not E.P. Sanders yet) is that circumcision, the kosher laws, and Sabbath and Jewish holiday observance all function as Identity Markers that set apart God's covenant people from the rest of the world. Paul seems to be rejecting Torah observance as the distinguishing mark of God's new people.

Then what markers does Paul see as distinguishing God's "new covenant" people from the rest of the world?

TrevorHL said:

Again "impossible to comprehend"? I suggest that the Bible teaching

Click to expand...

I know the intellectual theory. I was referring to it on an emotional level. Have you ever come to terms emotionally with Jesus sacrificing himself, not merely for you, but for your many bad choices? <sigh> It's overwhelming to me. YMMV.

TrevorHL said:

Putting too much weight on one concept results in an error. You stated "the only reason".

Click to expand...

The only reason for the relationship between the circumference of a circle and its diameter is the governing equation. No error. Seems you are asserting "too much weight on one concept" as if there is such a thing when only focused on that one concept. It's applying it inappropriately that is problematic.

newton3005 said:

Jesus says to his disciples in Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." Doesn't sound like Jesus INTENDED to save just the Jews.

Click to expand...

Strawman. No one said only is the take away from that verse.

Yea, ignore the verses that DO sound like Jesus intended to save the Jews.