613 Commandments

[Ron Amnsn]

The first set was broken by Moses...

...The second set was crafted by Moses.

...They were worded differently than the 1st.

I've heard this from several sources. Yes, Moses broke the first set and Moses prepared the stones for the second set. But where in Scripture do people find it stated that the words God wrote on the second set of stones were different than the words God wrote on the first set of stones?

What I find says,

Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered." (Exo 34:1)

and

'And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered, and you shall put them in the ark.' (Deut 10:2)

God said he was going to write on the second set of stones the words that were on the first set of stones. I find it easy to believe that God did what he said he would do.

Radical difference between the Old and New Covenants...

...The 1st prepared the way for the 2nd.

...Demonstrated to man the failure of thinking he was 'God'.

Gustave, where in Scripture does it say what you have said here? This sounds like a man-made doctrine.

[Ron Amnsn]

 

He circumcised him BECAUSE of the Jews who were in those quarters, NOT because he thought it necessary for salvation, or to keep the law of Yahweh.

The Jews got rather violent about circumcision, especially when a man entered the Temple court.

 

Timothy wasn't anywhere near the Temple. Timothy wasn't circumcised when he was called.

You seem to interpret what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:18 as meaning, "Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised unless it is expedient to be circumcised, or unless you are threatened with violence" ? That may be a valid interpretation since the Jews in that region had the power to cause Timothy lots of grief.

The first-century believers were faced with violence and hardship any time they disassociated with the Jews, either by choice or by force. The Jews were the only people who were exempted from the required emperor worship of the Roman Empire. If the Jewish leaders in a town went to the Roman authorities and told them that your family was no longer considered Jewish, you would soon be in trouble with the Romans unless you participated in the pagan worship of the emperor. The definition of "Jewish" encompassed all the different sects that existed in Judaism at that time. The sect known as "the Way" (the followers of Jesus) was one of the sects within Judaism (see Acts 24:14). So whatever Paul instructed in 1 Cor 7:18 ("Let him not be circumcised.") needs to be understood within that context, rather than within the common Christian environment of today.

It appears that you still are not acknowledging the different meanings of circumcision in the New Testament.

 

NRS Galatians 2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.

NKJ Galatians 2:3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. (Gal 2:3 NKJ)

So Paul does not go up to the Temple for any of the Feasts - for 14 years.

And Titus - a converted Gentile, traveling with him - is NOT compelled to be circumcised.

Since there are two (or more) meanings to the word "circumcised" in the New Testament, then it is possible that Gentile believers could be circumcised according to God's law, but still be considered uncircumcised according to the man-made traditions of the Jews.

Today, if a Muslim man converts to Judaism, the Orthodox Jews would require him to go through a traditional circumcision ceremony even though he was already circumcised at age 12 or 13 as a Muslim. However, some Messianic Jews would consider a Muslim man to be be circumcised already. Is a Muslim man considered circumcised according to God's Law? Ishmael was considered circumcised when he was circumcised as young Muslim males are circumcised.

Titus may have been circumcised the way Abraham or Ishmael was circumcised, but not according to the man-made traditions of the Pharisees.

Paul may be referring to such a situation in Ephesians 2:11 where he says, "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--"

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron,

Do you believe that only those who are of Hebrew descent need to be physically circumcised?

No. But I think some believers will be circumcised when Jesus brings them into the promised land, as Joshua circumcised the Israelite males when they crossed into the promised land.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

The first set was broken by Moses...

...The second set was crafted by Moses.

...They were worded differently than the 1st.

I've heard this from several sources. Yes, Moses broke the first set and Moses prepared the stones for the second set. But where in Scripture do people find it stated that the words God wrote on the second set of stones were different than the words God wrote on the first set of stones?

What I find says,

Now the LORD said to Moses, "Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered." (Exo 34:1)

and

'And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered, and you shall put them in the ark.' (Deut 10:2)

God said he was going to write on the second set of stones the words that were on the first set of stones. I find it easy to believe that God did what he said he would do.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Radical difference between the Old and New Covenants...

...The 1st prepared the way for the 2nd.

...Demonstrated to man the failure of thinking he was 'God'.

Gustave, where in Scripture does it say what you have said here? This sounds like a man-made doctrine.

[Ron Amnsn]

Just because the early believers continued to participate in the sacrifice of animals does not PROVE the continued efficacy of those sacrifices to effect atonement.

Rachel, I don't think anyone is trying to prove that people should offer sacrifices in order to effect atonement. Hebrews 10 tells us that the sacrifices were never able to make people perfect, and that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin. That was true in the Old Testament times as well as in New Testament times.

The Torah does teach that those who brought certain sacrifices were forgiven, but it doesn't teach sacrifices as the only method to be forgiven, and forgiveness is different than atonement.

Where in scripture does it teach that "atonement" was the only reason to offer a sacrifice? The Bible teaches many reasons to offer sacrifices. Some of those reasons are: to draw near to God, to be obedient, to provide a pleasing aroma, to commemorate events that God wanted commemorated, to provide the promised inheritance for the priests and Levites, to show thankfulness, to complete a vow, to show what Messiah does for us, for example.

[Ron Amnsn]

So - you believe that WHEN Christ returns to set up His kingdom on this earth, He will stand by and allow another man to officiate as high priest (one from the line of Aaron). He will be the King but NOT the high priest.

I can't believe that.

 

I guess that depends on what you think a Melchizedekian priest does when "officiating".  God gave the Levitical priests a rather detailed schedule and instructions about how to officiate at the Tabernacle and Temple where God chose to place his name forever.  But Scripture doesn't record the instructions or schedule for what a Melchizedekian priest does when carrying out his duties.  How often does a priest of the order of Melchizedek have official duties at which to officiate?

 

I believe Jesus was a Melchezidekian priest while he was on earth, yet Jesus was content to allow the Levitical priests to officiate at the Temple in Jerusalem. After Jesus was resurrected he was a Melchizedekian priest during the four decades that the Levitical priests still officiated at the Jerusalem Temple before it was destroyed in 70 AD.  Jesus continues to be a priest of the order of Melchizedek in heaven, without having any duties here on earth at which to officiate as priest.

 

So, it could be that Melchizedekian priests don't officiate in the manner of Levitial priests, nor on the schedule of the earthly Temple.  Could the book of Hebrews be describing the duties of the Melchizedekian priesthood when it says Jesus offered a sacrifice just once and then sat down?

[Ron Amnsn]

Just because the early believers continued to participate in the sacrifice of animals does not PROVE the continued efficacy of those sacrifices to effect atonement. The early converts to Christ from among the Jews were "all zealous for the law". Doesn't mean they had everything "right".

 

Well, what do you use to define "right"? If you use the Scriptures to define what is "right", you'd have a very difficult time showing that they were not right.

The prophets foretold the behaviour of those early believers:

For these men are not drunk, as you assume, because it is the third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:

'And it will be in the last days,' God says, 'I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. And even on my male slaves and on my female slaves I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. (Acts 2:15-18)

 

And I will give to them one heart, and a new spirit I will give in their inner parts. And I will remove their heart of stone from their body, and I will give to them a heart of flesh, so that they may walk in my statutes, and they will keep my regulations, and they will do them, and they will be to me a people, and I myself will be to them as God. (Ezekiel 11:19:20)

 

Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. (Ezekiel 36:26-27)

 

"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law [torah] within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (Jeremiah 31:33)

 

Shouldn't we expect the followers of Jesus to live like Jesus lived, and to be zealous about the Scriptures that Jesus had inspired?

[Ron Amnsn]

So - it took the LORD some time to wean them away from the system of sacrifices. He finally allowed the Temple to be destroyed, and has prevented its restoration for almost 2000 years.

This "weaning away" theory is quite popular among Christians who have noticed that the early believers behaved differently than they behave themselves. But is this theory based on Scripture? If so, which verses in particular teach that God weans his people away from obedience to His Word?

I can think of just two passages that might be taken out of context to support the idea that the beliefs of those who were "zealous for the Law" was defective compared to the faith of those who came later who had been "weaned away" from the Old Testament.

 

We don't read Paul telling the converts from the Gentiles to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the Feasts, or telling them that they need to be physically circumcised so that they can enter the Temple court to offer sacrifice.

Paul didn't need to write such letters to the various congregations because the Old Testament Scriptures clearly teach these things, and the Holy Spirit was also causing the people to follow God's instructions. Paul was teaching the people from God's Word and was also showing the people by his own example how to follow the example of Jesus. And those, like Peter, who had actually been with Jesus were also confirming that same message.

 

He tells them just the opposite.

Really? Where does Paul actually tell the Gentiles this? You're apparently reading Paul's letters as if he was writing to Protestants, rather than to Jews and to Gentiles who were meeting regularly with Jews who were still following the man-made Jewish traditions.

 

Paul wrote:

ASV 1 Corinthians 9:20 "And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;"

Paul did NOT consider himself "under the law", and he saw the Jews who were "zealous for the law" as "under the law".

That depends on which "law" you're talking about.

Often Christians imagine that Paul was a sneaky hypocrite, living like the Jews when he was with the Jews but living like a Protestant when he was with the Gentiles. However, when we read the story of his ministry we find that Paul was constantly among both Jews and Gentiles, believers and non-believers, so even if he wanted to have multiple personalities, he would have had very few opportunities to do so. We know that Paul did not condone the kind of hypocrisy that Christians often attribute to Paul in this passage because he publicly rebuked Peter for this very thing. (Gal 2)

In 1Cor 9:19-21 Paul is explaining how he bacame "a slave" to the various groups of people he served:

• The "Jews" had the Law of Moses plus their culture plus the oral law of the various Jewish sects. Paul served them in a way that respected their background.
• The Gentile proselytes that had fully converted to Judaism (like Nicolas who was chosen as a deacon in Acts 6:5) had taken a solemn vow at the culmination of their proselyte training to follow Law of Moses plus the man-made oral law of the Jewish sages. When these proselytes had been circumcised according to the man-made traditions of the Jews they had taken a vow that put themselves "under the law" of men. Paul served them in a way that respected their background and honored the vow they had made before God.
• Paul served the Gentiles that had not converted to Judaism in a way that would bring them to Messiah, but Paul makes it clear that he did not act like a pagan in order to do so: "though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ" By his example Paul showed these Gentiles who were "without law" how to live according to "the law of God", specifically in "the way" that Jesus (the giver of the Law) had lived it, which Paul calls "the law of Christ".

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron,

Someday one of us will find out that he (or she)was wrong.

Both of us will undoubtedly find out that we were wrong about many things.