What was the "yoke of bondage" ?

[Ron Amnsn]

I have heard the argument made several times, by different Hebrew Roots teachers.  They say that "the law" in Galatians was the Rabbinic tradition of the "Oral Law". 

I can't quite buy that one. 

The law in Galatians was "our school master to lead us to Christ". 

That certainly could NOT be said of the Oral Torah, or the traditions of the Pharisees.

I'm not saying that "the Law" in Galatians is the "oral law". The controversy in Galatians was about "oral law" that conflicted with the Word of God. Because it was written in a Jewish context Paul's letter to the Galatians no doubt refers to various types of "law", depending on the context.

Paul is responding to a particular situation in Galatians. That controversy is the primary context for Paul's response. Those who don't value Torah (God's Law of Moses) want to imagine that the controversy in Galatia was between folks like themselves and folks who taught Torah. But let's face it, Gentiles who didn't value Torah wouldn't have been sitting in the Jewish synagogue in Galatia Sabbath after Sabbath listening to the readings from the Torah and the Prophets year after year. If a modern Christian were to slip back in time to attend the synagogue with the believers in Galatia, they would think they were in the wrong place because they wouldn't find a New Testament in the whole congregation. They would find that the believers valued the Scriptures (the Old Testament) as the Word of God.

The Torah explicitly prohibited people from adding to or taking away from God's Law. So those who insist on adding to God's Law try to pretend that their made-up law is part of God's Law, deliberately muddling the distinction between God's Law and man-made tradition. That's what Paul was dealing with.

[Ron Amnsn]

It seems that some folks want another Mt Sinai type event, with glory and a thunderous voice of God, to tell us that the system of animal sacrifice ministered through mortal sinful men, can now be set aside.  I think that God sent an even greater event.  The death of the Lamb which God provided.  

 

The sacrificial system  thru the Aaronic priesthood was a PROPHECY.  That was God's plan all along. 

No man is changing something that God did not intend to change. 

God Himself changed it.  He planned it that way!

Those last two sentences are false.

If God planned to end the sacrificial system at the death of Messiah, why did God command the Israelites to offer the sacrifice "throughout your generations"? Why did God give a portion of those sacrifices to the Levitical priests as their inheritance in lieu of tribal land? Did God plan ahead that the Levites would lose that inheritance when Messiah came? Did God plan ahead that the rest of the tribes would lose their inheritance of land when Messiah arrived? No. So why would God plan ahead for the Levites to lose their livelihood when Messiah came? If God planned for the sacrifices to end at the death of Messiah, why did Jeremiah confirm that the Levitical priests were expected to continue offering sacrifices as long as day and night continue? And why did Jesus tell the Jews to go ahead and offer their sacrifices after reconciling with their brother? (Matt. 5:24?)  Why did Jesus teach that not a stroke would disappear from the Law until heaven and earth pass away? Why did Jesus quote the prophecy from Isaiah just a week before his death about how Gentiles would come to the Temple to pray and offer sacrifices?

If God planned to do away with the Temple sacrifices at the death of Messiah, why did Jesus teach, "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." ? If Paul was teaching what you're teaching, then according to Jesus the apostle Paul would be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven.  Someone of such low position would not have any authority to teach contrary to what Jesus taught, or contrary to what Moses, Jeremiah, and Isaiah taught.

Yes, the Aaronic priesthood was a prophecy. It was also a God-ordained way of worship. And God himself commanded and covenanted and confirmed through prophecy that the Aaronic priesthood was to continue as long as the Israelites continued to have generations.

You seem to be doing the same thing the Jews did with their "oral law" -- claiming that God himself is the source of your man-made doctrines.

When God wanted Abraham to stop sacrificing Isaac, God clearly communicated that directly to Abraham at the pertinent moment when the sacrifice was to stop. We should expect the same sort of clear and timely message from God when he wants the Temple sacrifices to stop. When did God clearly tell the Levitical priests (or the Jewish believers) to stop offering animal sacrifices at the Temple?  Apparently God didn't because the believers continued to daily attend at the Temple where the sacrifices were being offered for the nation of Israel, and Paul himself went up to the Temple accompanied by other believers with the intention of offering an animal sacrifice during his last visit to Jerusalem, and the Lord himself commended Paul for the manner he had witnessed during that last visit to Jerusalem. (Acts 23:11)

[Ron Amnsn]

It is CLEAR from First Century Writings that a journey to Jerusalem, to present a sin offering, or a whole burnt offering is NOT NECESSARY for justification, sanctification, salvation, or access to the Father. 

 

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to everyone who believes"  (Romans 10:4).

 

If the Bible translators were consistent in the way they translated the Greek word "telos", Romans 10:4 would read, "For Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."

 

It is true that people living outside the land of Israel were not required to journey to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices, even when the Temple was standing and the Levitical priests were officiating at the altar.  It is not surprising that the writings of the apostles agree with the Old Testament on that. 

 

When the New Testament was written the Israelites were still dispersed among the nations and the Jewish nation was in bondage to the Romans.  The prophets foretell a time when God will regather his people.  That's probably why the angel in Revelation calls out, "Come out of her my people. Babylon is fallen."

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

 I believe that FAITHFUL Aaronic priests WILL continue as priests forever.  Unfaithful ones will be "cut off".  

 

I just believe they will not be the ONLY priests in the coming Messianic Kingdom on this earth. 

The LORD's original intention was that all of Israel would be a "kingdom of priests".

That intention (His will) will be fulfilled.

 

"Generations" will come to an END with the Second Coming.  There will be no marriage, and thus no sex, and no conception. 

 

I believe the LORD will need a greater number of priests to minister to "the nations" raised as "the rest of the dead" at the 8th Day.

The entire number of Aaronic priests who ever lived, would not be enough.

The LORD will need the entire number of the redeemed - (Who are Israelites - grafted in by adoption.)   

[8thdaypriest]

So Ron,

In your opinion, what WAS the "yoke" that the Jerusalem Council did NOT want to put on the Gentile converts. 

 

You and I will probably never agree concerning whether the sacrifice of animals was ENDED by the LORD Himself. 

I understand the Book of Hebrews differently from you.  So I realize that your understanding of the "yoke" will be different from my understanding.

But I want to hear your explanation. 

 

Thanks

Respectfully

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint

[joeb]

 

There are two sides to God's Law. One side defines righteousness and the other side defines love.

Say what?  God is righteousness.  God is love.  They are one and the same thing.  Love is the fulfillment of the law.  Righteousness is the fulfillment of the law. 

 

I've more to say but just realized I have to run.  I'm already late to where I need to be right now.

[8thdaypriest]

God Himself allowed the destruction of the Temple (and the City) 1945 years ago.

(That period is longer than all the Temples stood - put together.)

 

HE made it IMPOSSIBLE for the followers of Yeshua to observe the laws concerning sacrifice. 

Personally, I believe HE wanted to wean His people away from that system. 

[Robert]

That is the same charge Satan makes. 

 

 

Where in the Bible does it state that Satan claims that God's law cannot be kept?.....Remember, ultimately Ellen White states that the Bible is the final authority. So I need to see this from the Bible and in context.

 

"if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments". 

 

 So, do you believe that in order to enter into life (heaven) one must keep the commandments?  

 

If so, I suggest we go over the context of Matt chapter 19 because it reveals what the law requires....

[Robert]

Christ came to be our example.... {1SM 409.1} 

 

Was Ellen White infallible?  That is, was she free from error in her writings?

 

Answer:

 

"In regard to infallibility, I NEVER claimed it; God ALONE is Infallible."  Selected Messages, Book One, pp 415 and 37

 

There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our  (Ellen White includes herself) expositions of Scripture are without error.  The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible.  Age will not make an error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair.  No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.  Review and Herald, December 20,1892 

 

"We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn.  God and heaven alone are infallible.  Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed.  

 

We must study the truth for ourselves.  No man (or woman, i.e., Ellen White as gifted as she was) should be relied upon to think for us.  No matter who he is, or in what position he may be placed, we are not to look upon any man as a criterion for us.  Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 106 and 110

 

 

The Bible clearly teaches that Christ came primarily to save us from "under law".  Therefore Christ's mission was to redeem, not to be our example.  In a secondary sense He came to be our example....

[Robert]

So Jesus was in error when in that same chapter He said: " but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"? Matt 19:17. 

 

I'll answer your other questions later.....

 

No, Jesus wasn't in error when He said, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"!  But...as always, you must look at the context and the reason He made this statement.  Here's the context:

 

Matt 19:16 "Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

 

Two things:

 

1] Jesus is addressed, not as the Son of God, but a teacher or Rabbi...a teacher of the law.  Not only a teacher, but a "good" teacher.

 

2] This man wants to know what "good thing" he can do in order to obtain eternal life.  

 

What is Jesus reply?

[Robert]

I'll answer your other questions later.....

No, Jesus wasn't in error when He said, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments"! But...as always, you must look at the context and the reason He made this statement. Here's the context:

Matt 19:16 "Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

Two things:

1] Jesus is addressed, not as the Son of God, but a teacher or Rabbi...a teacher of the law. Not only a teacher, but a "good" teacher.

2] This man wants to know what "good thing" he can do in order to obtain eternal life.

What is Jesus reply?

Matt 19:17 (NKJV) "And he (Jesus) said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Did Jesus have a problem with this man calling him "good"? No! Then why did he chastise him? Because this man wasn't addressing Jesus as the Son of God, but rather a rabbi or teacher of the law, that is, a mere man!

How many are good? Zero! Who says? The law!!!

Paul says the same: "There is none righteous, no, not even one" Rom 3:10

But, Jesus said, if you want heaven by doing good then you must keep the law.

That's the context.

[Robert]

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”

 

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?”

 

His question, from the context of this story, is rhetorical.  In his eyes he isn't lacking.  He has kept all these commandments from his youth up....

 

Nevertheless Jesus answers his question:

 

verse 21 “If you would be perfect (as you claim), go, sell what you possess and give to the poor....."

 

In other words if you really claim to keep the law (you shall love your neighbor as yourself) then you should have no problem  making sure the poor have your wealth.  That's loving your neighbor as you naturally love yourself.

 

That's what the law demands!!!!!  No where does it demand self-love (iniquity).  It demands only agape love.  The law doesn't say "love yourself" and "love your neighbor".  If you love self you can't love your neighbor.  In fact you will try to exploit your neighbor if you love self.

 

When you go to Walmart for those cheap Chinese prices, who are you thinking about?  Your Chinese neighbors or yourself?

 

Right, the latter....It's called Capitalism.  It's based on keeping the rich folks richer by exploiting the poorer folks.  The Stock Market is based on this.  Hence our market is not based on God's love, but self-love. If you have stocks you are participating in exploitation.  You are participating in sin and therefore you are a sinner.  

 

Who says?  The law!

 

So Jesus was correct:  If you want heaven by being good, keep the law....Not the dos and don'ts, but the spirit of the law.....

[Robert]

Paul (i.e., the converted Paul) says that as "touching the righteousness which is in the law"--as far as outward acts were concerned --he was "blameless" (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt. He says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9. When he saw the spiritual nature of the law, sin appeared in its true hideousness, and his self-esteem was gone. SC 29,30

[Ron Amnsn]

I want to understand just what "yoke" the Jerusalem Council did NOT WANT to put on the Gentiles who were turning to Christ. 

 

What was THAT YOKE?  Was it the Oral Torah traditions of the Pharisees?  Was it the offering of animal sacrifice at the Temple? 

 

The issue being debated by the Council was circumcision. 

Thanks to the Pharisees, circumcision was tightly controlled for those converting to Judaism. 

It had to be a circumcision certified by an approved Rabbi, after 2 years of instruction in the Law. 

No man could enter the Temple Court without it. 

Therefore no man could offer a sacrifice without it.

 

When the Council ruled that circumcision was NOT necessary for Gentile converts,

(because honestly justification, sanctification, salvation, and access to God were already theirs thru Christ, WITHOUT offering a sacrifice)

that was the SAME as saying that animal sacrifice at the Temple was NOT NECESSARY for Gentile converts. 

 

If a Gentile did his own circumcision (like Abraham) and then appeared at the Temple,

it is doubtful he could have gained entrance. 

He was a foreigner, and had not been certified by an approved Rabbi. 

 

Yes. It was those man-made traditions regarding circumcision and how that traditional proselyte program related to salvation that were the issues at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.  Especially the lengthy instruction in the man-made "oral law" and the vow (or covenant) to observe that "oral law" that was required of the proselytes before the program culminated with circumcision.

 

The "oral law" was the yoke of bondage that Peter referred to. 

 

Jesus spoke against those same man-made traditional laws when he said of the Pharisees, "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger." (Matt 23:3-4)

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron,

 I believe that FAITHFUL Aaronic priests WILL continue as priests forever.  Unfaithful ones will be "cut off".  

 

I just believe they will not be the ONLY priests in the coming Messianic Kingdom on this earth. 

The LORD's original intention was that all of Israel would be a "kingdom of priests".

That intention (His will) will be fulfilled.

 

"Generations" will come to an END with the Second Coming.  There will be no marriage, and thus no sex, and no conception. 

 

I believe the LORD will need a greater number of priests to minister to "the nations" raised as "the rest of the dead" at the 8th Day.

The entire number of Aaronic priests who ever lived, would not be enough.

The LORD will need the entire number of the redeemed - (Who are Israelites - grafted in by adoption.)   

 

I'm content to leave the speculation about the Messianic Kingdom to you and others. When Messiah is ruling as King from the throne of David he can instruct us directly in what needs to be done.  He can also institute whatever changes he wishes, but I fully expect any such changes will still honor the promises and covenants that God made with his people in the past.

[Ron Amnsn]

God Himself allowed the destruction of the Temple (and the City) 1945 years ago.

(That period is longer than all the Temples stood - put together.)

 

HE made it IMPOSSIBLE for the followers of Yeshua to observe the laws concerning sacrifice. 

Personally, I believe HE wanted to wean His people away from that system.

 

I'm not surprised that's what you believe -- that's what the traditions of men have been teaching for centuries.  And that belief could be correct -- it just conflicts with almost everything that Scripture teaches on the subject.

 

The upshot the traditional Christian teaching is that God's promises and covenants can't really be trusted, and that the traditions of men can set aside the Word of God.

[Robert]

Yes. It was those man-made traditions regarding circumcision....

 

 

Actually, circumcision was not man-made.  God instituted circumcision:

 

Genesis chapter 17

 

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless (i.e., in faith)" ....

9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 

10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 

11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 

12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner--those who are not your offspring. 

13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 

14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." 

 

Romans 4:11 "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised."

[Ron Amnsn]

Actually, circumcision was not man-made.  God instituted circumcision:

 

Yes, God did.

 

But the Jews created a bunch of man-made traditions regarding circumcision. Those traditional man-made requirements put Gentile converts under the "yoke of bondage" to man-made regulations.

 

If a person born Jewish decided that they were going to follow "the Way" of Jesus instead of following the traditions of "oral law", they were free to do so because they had never personally vowed to follow the man-made regulations of traditional "oral law". 

 

However, Gentiles who converted to Judaism through the traditional proselyte process that was prevalent in New Testament times were required to make a solemn vow (covenant) before God, prior to their circumcision at the culmination of their proselyte program, to live according to the traditional requirements of "oral law".  Because Scripture teaches that we should honor our vows and covenants, it seems that such Gentile converts were not free to abandon the man-made requirements of traditional "oral law".  They remained "under the law".

[Robert]

Yes, God did.

 

But the Jews created a bunch of man-made traditions regarding circumcision. Those traditional man-made requirements put Gentile converts under the "yoke of bondage" to man-made regulations.

 

If a person born Jewish decided that they were going to follow "the Way" of Jesus instead of following the traditions of "oral law", they were free to do so because they had never personally vowed to follow the man-made regulations of traditional "oral law". 

 

However, Gentiles who converted to Judaism through the traditional proselyte process that was prevalent in New Testament times were required to make a solemn vow (covenant) before God, prior to their circumcision at the culmination of their proselyte program, to live according to the traditional requirements of "oral law".  Because Scripture teaches that we should honor our vows and covenants, it seems that such Gentile converts were not free to abandon the man-made requirements of traditional "oral law".  They remained "under the law".

 

 

Okay, what did the man-made version look like?  Use the Bible to answer me if you would.  

[Robert]

Here's what I think you are referring to:

 

Acts 15:1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”

 

5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

 

Gal 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.    

 

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

 

BTW Paul was circumcised after he was converted.  SO what was the man-made reason(s) for circumcision?

[Ron Amnsn]

Okay, what did the man-made version look like?  Use the Bible to answer me if you would.  

 

Robert, why would the man-made traditions be in the Bible? They were man-made, not the Word of God.  The traditional "oral law" of the Jews was oral, that means it wasn't written down (while the Bible was being written).  Much of it was later written down when the remaining Jewish sages were so concerned that the oral traditions would be lost, that they disobeyed their own traditional requirement that the oral traditions never be written down.  We find the record of those oral traditions in the Mishna and the rest of the Talmud.

 

There are a few mentions of the man-made traditions regarding circumcision in Scripture.

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."  (Act 15:1)  The Jews attribute all of the man-made traditions of "oral law" to Moses, claiming that Moses received the oral customs at Mt. Sinai. (That claim is shown to be false in Scripture.)  We know that the phrase "according to the custom of Moses" in Acts 15:1 is not talking about Scripture because the Scriptures tell us that the personal custom of the man Moses was to not circumcise.  Remember how much trouble Moses got into for not circumcising his own son?  His wife did that circumcision. (Exodus  4:24-26)  Then when the Israelites crossed the Jordan River into the promised land, one of the first things God told Joshua to do was to circumcise all the uncircumcised males, "but all the people who were born in the wilderness along the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised." (Joshua 5:4-5)  Obviously, Moses hadn't been circumcising the male Israelites as he led them from Egypt.  So, the "custom of Moses" is referring to the oral traditions that were falsely attributed to Moses, not referring to what was customary for Moses himself to do.

[Ron Amnsn]

SO what was the man-made reason(s) for circumcision.

 

The verse you quoted, Acts 15:1, gives the main reason, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."  Many of the Jews believed that the only way a Gentile could be saved was for them to become Jewish.  The sages had long ago developed a traditional way to supposedly do just that.  Their ritual proselyte program was well established by the time the New Testament happened.  It was the status quo for Gentiles who wanted to serve the God of Israel.  As far as anyone could remember, that was the way it had always been done.  No doubt they claimed that Moses himself had developed the program for converting Gentiles into Jews.  That man-made proselyte program was what Paul was opposing.

 

One follower of Jesus who had been through the traditional proselyte program for Gentiles is mentioned in Acts 6:5. Nicolas the seventh "deacon" is described as "a proselyte from Antioch."

[Ron Amnsn]

BTW Paul was circumcised after he was converted.

 

I've not heard that before.  Are you perhaps referring to Timothy?

[8thdaypriest]

    1 Corinthians 7:18-20  “Was anyone called while circumcised?  Let him not become uncircumcised.  Was anyone called while uncircumcised?  Let him not be circumcised.  Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.  Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.”

 

Everyone must make up his own mind.  But it seems to me that Paul could not have written in any more clearly.  Physical circumcision is a non-issue, so far as the kingdom of God is concerned.

 

If one was called as a Gentile, then he should remain uncircumcised.  That seems plain enough.

 

        Galatians 2:1,3 “Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.”   “Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.”

    Acts 16:3 [Concerning Timothy] Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.” [but his mother was a Jew.]

    NOTE: The letter from the Jerusalem Council was sent only to congregations with large numbers from the Gentile converts, who were uncircumcised.  It was not circulated throughout Judea, to congregations made up mostly of Jews.  If this letter was primarily to tell Jews that the Oral Law of the Pharisees was now to be considered non-binding, why send it to the uncircumcised?  I personally do not buy the argument that only the Oral Law was now to be considered obsolete - that this was the “unbearable yoke”.  

 

Galatians 2:9 “and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”

 

Galatians 5:6  “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”

 

    Galatians 6:15 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.”

 

Paul NEVER says "the circumcision of the Pharisees avails nothing."     He just says "circumcision . . . avails nothing."

 

I still say that a man who had not received circumcision in the approved Pharisaic way, could NOT have entered the Temple court to offer sacrifice.

His name would not have been written in the "approved" book of citizens.

 

   Before leaving Galatians, we need to look at what happened when those believing Pharisees (the circumcision party) came down from Jerusalem to Antioch.  The text in Galatians says they “came from James” but James makes it clear later, that he did NOT send them.  They must have been very influential or powerful men, because Peter feared them, and stopped eating with the uncircumcised converts.  Paul writes that “the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.”  Well Paul let Peter have it.  He “withstood him to is face” “before them all” - right in front of everyone.  The story is in Galatians Chapter 2.

 

Just a few OTHER references on circumcision.

[8thdaypriest]

Romans 2:26-29  “Therefore, if an uncircumcised man [a Gentile convert to the gospel] keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?”

    If he “keeps the righteous requirements of the law” the uncircumcised man will be regarded as circumcised in the eyes of God.   It should be noted that one can keep every one of the Ten Commandments without being physically circumcised - especially if that Law is written on the heart (Romans 2:13-15).  

    Romans 2:25  “For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”

    No one  kept the law perfectly (except Christ), so all would be considered uncircumcised in the eyes of God.   Only Christ can circumcise the heart.  And one day soon, He will also circumcise our flesh - when we are “changed in a moment”.

 

Romans 2:28-29 “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;  but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

    Romans 3:30 “There is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.”

    Both circumcised and uncircumcised are “justified” by faith.

 

    Romans 4:11-12 “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also”  and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

    Both the circumcised and the uncircumcised must “walk in the steps of faith” as Abraham did.  They will be saved - in the SAME way - thru faith.

 

Blessings,

Rachel Cory

Prophecy Viewpoint