What was the "yoke of bondage" ?

[Ron Amnsn]

Col 2:11  and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

 

You CANNOT physically circumcise a man, without the use of "hands". 

 

Circumcision of the heart can be done "without hands".

 

 

The "circumcision of Christ" is NOT physical circumcision!

 

Are you saying that Jesus was not physically circumcised?  Or are you saying that the Gentile believers went through a ritual where they experienced something called "circumcision of Christ" that was different than the kind of circumcision that Jesus had been circumcised with?

[Ron Amnsn]

I answered this one before. 

There WERE commands in the Tanak (Old Testament)  which forbade Israelites from eating with the uncircumcised (Exo 23:32, Exo 34:12 & 15, Ezra 9:12, Deut 7:3-4, Deut 23:6).

Sharing a meal IMPLIED a covenant, especially if any food was salted. 

 

These were NOT simply "Oral Law" traditions.   Soooo - there's ANOTHER CHANGE of the Law - by Christ.

 

I can see why you didn't include the text of those verses that supposedly forbade the Israelites from eating with Gentiles.  They don't say anything about eating or not eating. You have apparently drawn on the traditional "oral law" of the Jews. Let's look at the passages of Scripture in context.

 

Exo 23:28  And I will send the hornet before you, and it will drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you.

Exo 23:29  I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become a desolation and the wild animals multiply against you.

Exo 23:30  Little by little I will drive them out from before you until you are fruitful and take possession of the land.

Exo 23:31  "'And I will set your boundary from the Red Sea and up to the sea of the Philistines and from the desert up to the river, because I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out from before you.

Exo 23:32  You will not make a covenant with them and with their gods.

Exo 23:33  They will not live in your land, lest they cause you to sin against me when you serve their gods, for it will be a snare to you.'"

 

This passage says nothing about eating or not eating.

 

God commanded the Israelites to not make covenants with the Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites who God would drive out of the Promised Land as the Israelites settled it.  In Galatians 2, was Peter in danger of making a covenant with the Gentiles who were to be driven out of the Land promised to the descendants of Abraham? No.  Was Peter in danger of making a covenant with pagan gods by eating with the Gentile believers?  No.

 

In the time of King David, after all the Promised Land had been conquered, Uriah the Hittite was one of David's band of thirty "mighty men".  Do you suppose that David never ate with Uriah and did not enter into any kind of agreement with him?  When David was rebuked, it was not for eating with a Hittite, but for killing Uriah the Hittite.

[8thdaypriest]

Circumcision, as given to Abraham, was an everlasting covenant between God and Israel (Abraham's descendants).  The problem is the Jews perverted circumcision and made it into something it wasn't.

 

Again, why did God give circumcision to Abraham?  If you read the story of Abraham you will know the answer....

Robert,

You sound somewhat condescending.  Just say what it is you believe.

[8thdaypriest]

Circumcision of the heart can be done "without hands".

 

 

 

Are you saying that Jesus was not physically circumcised?  Or are you saying that the Gentile believers went through a ritual where they experienced something called "circumcision of Christ" that was different than the kind of circumcision that Jesus had been circumcised with?

Of course Jesus "fulfilled the law" and was physically circumcised on "the 8th day'.  Dumb question!

 

Jesus did not need to be circumcised in heart.  He was born with a clean sinless heart.  He had the Spirit from birth. 

We receive the Spirit when we believe and are baptized. 

The anointing of the Spirit, is now the sign, seal, or token. 

 

Abraham was promised "the land".

Every man circumcised believed that as a descendant of Abraham - he was entitled to "the land".  (And now they all fight over it!)

But every man disobyed the Covenant by sinning against Yahweh.

ONLY Christ fulfilled the Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants in every detail.

ONLY He can inherit "the land".

If we "belong to Christ" then we will share in HIS inheritance. 

[8thdaypriest]

I can see why you didn't include the text of those verses that supposedly forbade the Israelites from eating with Gentiles.  They don't say anything about eating or not eating. You have apparently drawn on the traditional "oral law" of the Jews. Let's look at the passages of Scripture in context.

 

Exo 23:28  And I will send the hornet before you, and it will drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you.

Exo 23:29  I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become a desolation and the wild animals multiply against you.

Exo 23:30  Little by little I will drive them out from before you until you are fruitful and take possession of the land.

Exo 23:31  "'And I will set your boundary from the Red Sea and up to the sea of the Philistines and from the desert up to the river, because I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out from before you.

Exo 23:32  You will not make a covenant with them and with their gods.

Exo 23:33  They will not live in your land, lest they cause you to sin against me when you serve their gods, for it will be a snare to you.'"

 

This passage says nothing about eating or not eating.

Sharing a meal IMPLIED a covenant of peace, between you and the other persons.  That is not spelled out in Scripture, but is part of Ancient Covenant Law.  I learned it from Rico Cortes, who cites so many references on Ancient Middle Eastern customs, that I couldn't keep trac of them all.  

[8thdaypriest]

In the time of King David, after all the Promised Land had been conquered, Uriah the Hittite was one of David's band of thirty "mighty men".  Do you suppose that David never ate with Uriah and did not enter into any kind of agreement with him?  When David was rebuked, it was not for eating with a Hittite, but for killing Uriah the Hittite.

Uriah may have been like one of the "mixed multitude" who became absorbed into Israel, and worshiped the God of Israel.  In that case, he would have BEEN considered an Israelite, even though his heritage was Hittite.    If not - then David had entered into a "covenant" with "the people of the land" in the person of Uriah, and with Ahithophel the Gilonite (Bathsheba's grandfather).  Ahithophel's son Eliam (father of Bathsheba) was one of 37 honored fighting men appointed as David's personal guards (2Sam. 23:34). 

 

Ahithophel became one of David's most trusted advisors, but he conspired with Absolom (2Sam. 15:31) against David.  You have to wonder if the roots of this were not in David's kidnapping and rape of Bathsheba. 

 

The prophet Elijah was a Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead (1Ki 17:1 KJV).  His ancestry may NOT have been Hebrew either, but he certainly spoke for Yahweh. 

 

My point is that persons of many different blood lines became part of Israel, so Uriah is not a good example of eating with a foreigner, without entering into Covenant with same.

 

Caleb was a great-grandson of Esau, and was "grafted in" to the tribe of Judah. 

[Ron Amnsn]

There WERE commands in the Tanak (Old Testament)  which forbade Israelites from eating with the uncircumcised (Exo 23:32, Exo 34:12 & 15, Ezra 9:12, Deut 7:3-4, Deut 23:6).

 

These were NOT simply "Oral Law" traditions.   Soooo - there's ANOTHER CHANGE of the Law - by Christ.

 

Let's look at the second passage.  Exodus 34:12,15.

 

Exo 34:11  "Keep for yourself what I myself have commanded you today. Look, I am about to drive from before you the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites.

Exo 34:12  Be careful for yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, lest it be a snare among you.

Exo 34:13  Rather, you will tear down their altars, and you will break their stone pillars, and you will cut off their Asherah poles.

Exo 34:14  For you will not bow in worship to another god, for 'Yahweh Is Jealous' is his name, he is a jealous God,

Exo 34:15  lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they prostitute themselves after their gods, and they sacrifice to their gods, and they invite you, and you eat their sacrifice,

Exo 34:16  and you take from their daughters for your sons, and their daughters prostitute themselves after their gods, and they cause your sons to prostitute themselves after their gods.

 

This passage also mentions specifically the Gentile nations that God was going to drive out of the Land promised to Abraham and the descendents of Jacob.

 

It also says that eating the food sacrificed to the idols of the Gentiles is a problem.

 

That part of the Law of Moses was not changed by Jesus. In the letters to the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira in Revelation Jesus rebukes those who, like Balaam and Jezebel, taught the Israelites to eat food offered to idols (Rev. 2:14,24)

 

In Antioch was Peter in danger of eating with Gentile individuals who were supposed to be driven out of the Promised Land? No.

 

When eating with the Gentile believers in Antioch, was Peter in danger of eating foods sacrificed to idols?  Perhaps, depending on where those Gentiles purchased their food.  But he would have still been in that same danger after he quit eating with the Gentile believers if Peter purchased his food at the same market in Antioch where the Gentile believers purchased their food.

 

Throughout the passage you referenced, it's the false gods of the Gentiles and the pagan practices of the Gentiles that are the danger.  When the Gentiles are not affiliated with false gods and have set aside the pagan practices, as with the Gentile believers in Antioch or Uriah the Hittite, would this passage prohibit eating with Gentiles as Peter did?  No.  A righteous judge in Old Testament Israel could not convict a person of sin under the Law of Moses for eating with Gentiles, because the passage does not prohibit eating with Gentiles. 

 

When the Israelites left Egypt and entered into the covenant with God at Mt. Sinai, there were in their midst the mixed multitude of Gentiles who also entered into God's covenant.  Did the Law of Moses prohibit the Israelites from eating with the Gentiles of the mixed multitude? No.

Did the Law of Moses prohibit the Gentiles of the mixed multitude from eating with themselves?  No.

 

Thus when Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians 2, Paul was speaking in agreement with the Law of Moses, as Paul truthfully testified of himself in Acts 24:14, "But I do confess this to you, that according to the Way (which they call a sect), so I worship the God of our fathers, believing all things that are in accordance with the law and that are written in the prophets,"

[Ron Amnsn]

There WERE commands in the Tanak (Old Testament)  which forbade Israelites from eating with the uncircumcised (Exo 23:32, Exo 34:12 & 15, Ezra 9:12, Deut 7:3-4, Deut 23:6).

 

In Ezra 9:12, after hearing that the Israelites who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem had not separated themselves from the people of the lands and their detestable things, Ezra prays to God lamenting the sins of the Israelites.  Ezra confesses,"we have forsaken your commandments," and proceeds to list

some of those commandments.

 

Ezr 9:10  "And now our God what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken your commandments,

Ezr 9:11  which you commanded by the hand of your servants the prophets saying, 'The land that you are entering to possess is a land of impurity with the impurity of the peoples of the lands, with their detestable things which they have filled from end to end with their uncleanness.

Ezr 9:12  Therefore, do not give your daughters to their sons, and do not take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek their peace and prosperity so that forever you may be strong and eat the good of the land and may give it as an inheritance to your sons.'

Ezr 9:13  After all that has come upon us for our evil practices and for our great guilt—you, our God, have held back less than our guilt deserved and you have given us a remainder such as this.

Ezr 9:14  Shall we again break your commandments and intermarry with the peoples who practice these detestable things? Would you not be angry with us until you destroy us with no remnant or remainder?

Ezr 9:15  Yahweh, God of Israel, you are righteous, for we have been left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, for none can stand before you because of this."

 

Verse 12, which you referenced, does mention eating.  But it was not a prohibition on eating with Gentiles, but rather the blessing of eating the good produce of the land that would result from following God's commands.

 

The thing that Ezra says God prohibited was intermarrying with people who practice detestable things, and seeking their peace and prosperity.

 

In Antioch, was eating with the Gentile believers putting Peter in danger of intermarrying with people who practiced detestable things? No.  Was Peter seeking the peace and prosperity of people who practiced detestable things?  No.  Would Ezra condemn Peter for eating with the Gentile followers of Jesus in Antioch?  Probably not.

[Ron Amnsn]

There WERE commands in the Tanak (Old Testament)  which forbade Israelites from eating with the uncircumcised (Exo 23:32, Exo 34:12 & 15, Ezra 9:12, Deut 7:3-4, Deut 23:6).

 

Deuteronomy 7:3-4

Deu 7:1  "When Yahweh your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter into it to take possession of it, and he drives out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you,

Deu 7:2  and Yahweh your God will give them over to you and you defeat them, you must utterly destroy them; you shall not make a covenant with them, and you shall not show mercy to them.

Deu 7:3  And you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to their son; and you shall not take his daughter for your son.

Deu 7:4  For their sons and daughters will cause your son to turn away from following me, and so they will serve other gods, and the anger of Yahweh would be kindled against you, and he would quickly destroy you.

Deu 7:5  But this is what you must do to them: you shall break down their altars, and their stone pillars you shall smash, and their Asherah poles you shall hew down, and you shall burn their idols with fire.

Deu 7:6  For you are a holy people for Yahweh your God; Yahweh your God has chosen you to be for him a people, a treasured possession from among all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.

 

Once again this passage specifically refers to the Gentiles that were to be driven out of the Promised Land that God was giving to the Israelites. The passage says nothing about food nor does it prohibit eating with Gentiles.

 

In Antioch, was eating with Gentiles putting Peter in danger of doing anything with Gentiles that were supposed to be driven out of the Promised Land? No.

[8thdaypriest]

Let's look at the second passage.  Exodus 34:12,15.

 

Exo 34:11  "Keep for yourself what I myself have commanded you today. Look, I am about to drive from before you the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites.

Exo 34:12  Be careful for yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, lest it be a snare among you.

Exo 34:13  Rather, you will tear down their altars, and you will break their stone pillars, and you will cut off their Asherah poles.

Exo 34:14  For you will not bow in worship to another god, for 'Yahweh Is Jealous' is his name, he is a jealous God,

Exo 34:15  lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they prostitute themselves after their gods, and they sacrifice to their gods, and they invite you, and you eat their sacrifice,

Exo 34:16  and you take from their daughters for your sons, and their daughters prostitute themselves after their gods, and they cause your sons to prostitute themselves after their gods.

 

This passage also mentions specifically the Gentile nations that God was going to drive out of the Land promised to Abraham and the descendents of Jacob.

 

It also says that eating the food sacrificed to the idols of the Gentiles is a problem.

 

That part of the Law of Moses was not changed by Jesus. In the letters to the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira in Revelation Jesus rebukes those who, like Balaam and Jezebel, taught the Israelites to eat food offered to idols (Rev. 2:14,24)

 

In Antioch was Peter in danger of eating with Gentile individuals who were supposed to be driven out of the Promised Land? No.

 

When eating with the Gentile believers in Antioch, was Peter in danger of eating foods sacrificed to idols?  Perhaps, depending on where those Gentiles purchased their food.  But he would have still been in that same danger after he quit eating with the Gentile believers if Peter purchased his food at the same market in Antioch where the Gentile believers purchased their food.

 

Throughout the passage you referenced, it's the false gods of the Gentiles and the pagan practices of the Gentiles that are the danger.  When the Gentiles are not affiliated with false gods and have set aside the pagan practices, as with the Gentile believers in Antioch or Uriah the Hittite, would this passage prohibit eating with Gentiles as Peter did?  No.  A righteous judge in Old Testament Israel could not convict a person of sin under the Law of Moses for eating with Gentiles, because the passage does not prohibit eating with Gentiles. 

 

When the Israelites left Egypt and entered into the covenant with God at Mt. Sinai, there were in their midst the mixed multitude of Gentiles who also entered into God's covenant.  Did the Law of Moses prohibit the Israelites from eating with the Gentiles of the mixed multitude? No.

Did the Law of Moses prohibit the Gentiles of the mixed multitude from eating with themselves?  No.

 

Thus when Paul rebuked Peter in Galatians 2, Paul was speaking in agreement with the Law of Moses, as Paul truthfully testified of himself in Acts 24:14, "But I do confess this to you, that according to the Way (which they call a sect), so I worship the God of our fathers, believing all things that are in accordance with the law and that are written in the prophets,"

I agree with you Ron, that Paul was in agreement with "the Law" and the Pharisees from Jerusalem were NOT.  That's the point. 

Paul was in keeping with the Law, BECAUSE these Gentiles were believers, who worshiped the God of Israel, and were not worshiping idols.

The group from Jerusalem thought that made no difference BECAUSE these men were uncircumcised. 

[8thdaypriest]

Deuteronomy 7:3-4

Deu 7:1  "When Yahweh your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter into it to take possession of it, and he drives out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you,

Deu 7:2  and Yahweh your God will give them over to you and you defeat them, you must utterly destroy them; you shall not make a covenant with them, and you shall not show mercy to them.

Deu 7:3  And you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to their son; and you shall not take his daughter for your son.

Deu 7:4  For their sons and daughters will cause your son to turn away from following me, and so they will serve other gods, and the anger of Yahweh would be kindled against you, and he would quickly destroy you.

Deu 7:5  But this is what you must do to them: you shall break down their altars, and their stone pillars you shall smash, and their Asherah poles you shall hew down, and you shall burn their idols with fire.

Deu 7:6  For you are a holy people for Yahweh your God; Yahweh your God has chosen you to be for him a people, a treasured possession from among all the peoples that are on the face of the earth.

 

Once again this passage specifically refers to the Gentiles that were to be driven out of the Promised Land that God was giving to the Israelites. The passage says nothing about food nor does it prohibit eating with Gentiles.

 

In Antioch, was eating with Gentiles putting Peter in danger of doing anything with Gentiles that were supposed to be driven out of the Promised Land? No.

What was it - that we were discussing here??

The "unbearable yoke".

This thread is about to become an "unbearable yoke".  LOL

So Ron,

What exactly - do YOU believe was the unbearable yoke?

[Ron Amnsn]

There WERE commands in the Tanak (Old Testament)  which forbade Israelites from eating with the uncircumcised (Exo 23:32, Exo 34:12 & 15, Ezra 9:12, Deut 7:3-4, Deut 23:6).

 

Deuteronomy 23:6

Deu 23:3  An Ammonite or a Moabite may not come into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants may come into the assembly of Yahweh forever,

Deu 23:4  because they did not come to meet you with food and with water when you came out of Egypt, and also because they hired Balaam, son of Beor, from Pethor, in Aram Naharaim to act against you to curse you.

Deu 23:5  But Yahweh your God was not willing to listen to Balaam, and Yahweh your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because Yahweh your God loved you.

Deu 23:6  You shall not promote their welfare or their prosperity all your days forever.

Deu 23:7  "You shall not abhor an Edomite, because he is your brother; you shall not abhor an Egyptian because you were an alien in his land.

Deu 23:8  The children that are born to them in the third generation may come representing them in the assembly of Yahweh.

 

This passage refers specifically to the Ammonites and the Moabites because of what they did to the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. These were the relatives of the Israelites descended from Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:36-38).

 

In verse 4 it sounds like God expected the Moabites and Ammonites to provide food and water to the Israelites (food which could possibly have been offered to idols).  It could also imply that God also expected the Israelites to eat with them.

 

In verse 7 and 8 God names two Gentile nations that the Israelites were not to abhor.

 

A question arises about when the Israelites were supposed to start counting the 10 generations and the 3 generations that these particular nations were not permitted to enter the assembly of Israel.  My opinion is that they were supposed to start counting those generations with the generation that was alive when Moses gave the command because Ruth the Moabite was later welcomed into Israel and became an ancestor of King David (there were less than 10 generations between Ruth and David).  Ruth the Moabite is also an ancestor of Jesus.

 

This passage does not prohibit eating with Ammonites or Moabites after the tenth generation, and in context it doesn't apply to other Gentiles from other nations at all.

 

In Antioch, was Peter eating with Moabites and Ammonites from the 10 prohibited generations? Probably not.

[Robert]

Robert,

 

You sound somewhat condescending.  Just say what it is you believe.

 

I'll state the obvious from a reading of Abraham as found in the book of Genesis:

 

Abraham tried to help God produce the child  of promise.  That's a not faith in God, but faith in one's own performance.

 

Because of Abraham's lack of faith God waited until it was biologically impossible for him and Sarah to produce a child then he fulfilled his promise to Abraham.

 

What biological member did Abraham use in trying to produce the child of promise?  His penis of course.  

 

That sex act was an act of unbelief in God's promise.  It was a denial of justification by faith.  So the removal of the foreskin, i.e., circumcision, was a sign in the flesh of the removal of unbelief.  It was sign that God keeps His promises and does not need men's help.

[Robert]

Rom 4:19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead--since he was about a hundred years old--and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 

20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 

21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 

 

 

Keep in mind that this was after Abraham tried to help God keep His promise.  Not until Abraham's body (biologically speaking) was "as good as dead" & Sarah's womb "was also dead" was the statement made, "without weakening in his faith".  Before that Abraham had confidence in his works, which again was an act that contradicted justification by faith.

 

Circumcision, therefore, was a sign in the flesh of justification by faith and not of works.....

 

The Sabbath has similarities to this truth.

 

Just as there were two circumcisions; one based on men's performance and the other based on God's, so there are two Sabbaths (and I'm not speaking of Sunday).  One based on men's performance and the other based on God's rest, i.e., His perfect & finished redemption.  

[Robert]

 So the removal of the foreskin, i.e., circumcision, was a sign in the flesh of the removal of unbelief.  It was sign that God keeps His promises and does not need men's help.

 

Now turn to Acts 15:1,5

 

1 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." ....

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up,saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." 

 

So to these Judaizers salvation came by both circumcision and obedience to the law of Moses.

 

Now go back to Phil 3:2

 

Beware of the dogs (wolves in sheep's clothing), beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 

 

Notice that false circumcision puts "confidence" in one's performance where true circumcision (like Abraham's) places no confidence in one's performance, but rather glories in Christ Jesus.

 

Now Paul speaks of his pre-conversion experience:

 

4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 

 

5 circumcised the eight hday, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 

6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

 

Now what did Paul do with these bragging points after conversion?

 

 7 But what things were gain to me,those I counted loss for Christ. 

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things (see the list above verses 5-6) but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung,  that I may win Christ, 

9 And be found in him, not having mind own righteousness (i.e., self-righteousness), which is of the law,, but that which his through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith....

[Ron Amnsn]

Sharing a meal IMPLIED a covenant, especially if any food was salted. 

 

These were NOT simply "Oral Law" traditions.   Soooo - there's ANOTHER CHANGE of the Law - by Christ.

 

Where does Scripture teach that sharing a meal implies a covenant?

 

If that is true, what are the terms of the covenant that we supposedly make with strangers when we eat salted food in a cafeteria? 

 

Did Jesus enter into a covenant with all the people with whom he shared the five loaves and two fishes?  If that were true, and if your interpretation of the Law of Moses were correct, then Jesus himself would have become a sinner if there was even one uncircumcised Gentile in the crowd of people who ate the food that Jesus miraculously provided and shared with the multitudes.  Since there were probably Roman soldiers keeping an eye on such gatherings, and because there were other Gentiles in the land of Israel at that time, it would be quite likely that an uncircumcised Gentile shared one of those meals with Jesus and his disciples.  If Jesus was in danger of making a covenant with a Gentile that was prohibited by the Law of Moses, I think that Luke or one of the other Gospel writers would have made it clear that Jesus never shared a meal with a Gentile, and thus was not guilty of that supposed "sin".

 

Where does Jesus make the change that you allege he made to the Law of Moses?

 

It seems that you have tried to add to the Law of Moses (which is explicitly prohibited by God's Law of Moses) by creating prohibitions from things that you imply from verses taken out of context.  Then when you see that Paul's writings don't uphold your your man-made fence laws you assert that Jesus made changes to the Law of Moses (contrary to what Jesus explicitly taught).  Is that a responsible way to approach Scripture?

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

You are now saying to me, that I am "cursed" because you say, I have added to the "Law".   Isn't that just a little arrogant.  

 

All I said was that - anciently - a "covenant of peace" - in other words an agreement NOT to harm - was implied when men shared a meal.  That is well documented in ancient sources.  And NO - I'm NOT going to quote from them.  I refer you to Rico Cortes webwite: Wisdom in Torah.

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

You believe that believing men SHOULD be circumcised.  Yes?

 

To remain uncircumcised would then be sin.  Right?

 

Is un-circumcision something that believing men should repent of?   I say NO.

 

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.”

 

Ron,

You say that circumcision was a "commandment"

therefore we have to keep the commandments.

Therefore men MUST BE circumcised.

But THAT is saying the opposite of what Paul says in this verse. 

 

So - then you say that Paul was saying NO to Pharisaic circumcision,

but YES to "simple circumcision". 

 

So men keep the commandments by BEING circumcised, and NOT BEING circumcised - at the same time.

That's VERY confusing to me.

I wonder if it was also confusing to early Gentile believers. 

[8thdaypriest]

I will review the verses concerning forbidden covenant Law, and eating with Gentiles.

Until I study through it, I will not comment further on THAT part.   

[8thdaypriest]

Paul said that "the wall of separation" (which forbade the uncircumcised entry into the Temple Court) has now been broken down, by Christ. 

He "abolished" - "the Law of commandments contained in ordinances". 

 

WHAT LAWS WERE THOSE??

Were they just the laws of the Pharisees?

 

The WALL around the Temple Court was STILL STANDING when Paul wrote the Letter to the Ephesians. 

 

So it seems to me, Paul is saying THAT WALL no longer mattered.  Access to the Court of the Earthly Temple - no longer mattered.

 

Those believing Gentiles could now enter - not just the Court of the True Tabernacle - but into the Holiest Place of all. 

And they did NOT have to be circumcised first (simple or complicated).

 

Hebrews 10:19-20 “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh,”

 

Ephesians 2:18 “For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.”

    “Both” - meaning Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised.  

Ephesians 3:12 “in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.”

[8thdaypriest]

Hebrews 8:13  “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear” (NIV).

 

I know - you'll say the NIV is a poor translation.  I think it captures the meaning. 

[Robert]

 

You believe that believing men SHOULD be circumcised.  Yes?

 

 

I know the above was to Ron, but....

 

No, I don't believe Gentiles need to be circumcised because circumcision as a covenant was between God and Abraham's descents.  

 

Also keep in mind what Paul states in Phil 3:2-3

 

"beware of the false circumcision"

 

The false circumcision gloried not in Christ, but in themselves:  

 

Gal 6:13 "They desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh."  They are giving glory to men, not Christ.

 

On the other hand, "The true circumcision...glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh...." Phil 3:3

[8thdaypriest]

I was thinking about the perpetual priesthood covenant with Aaron and "his sons".  (Exodus 29:9)

And the "covenant of an everlasting priesthood" with Phinehas and his descendants  (Numbers 25:11-13)

And the covenant "with the Levites" mention in Jeremiah 33:19-22.

 

When all of these high priests from the past are resurrected (some to eternal life, and some to everlasting condemnation),

WHO will be the High Priest on earth?  -

assuming -  as Ron believes - that an earthly priesthood continues, and that Christ can only be a priest in the heavenly Tabernacle.  

 

There will be no marriage after the resurrection, therefore no further descendants - so only those who once lived could be part of that priesthood in Messiah's Kingdom.

Still - there would be several resurrected, who WERE high priests during their lifetimes.  

 

Will Aaron become the forever High Priest?  With the rest just becoming regular priests?  

 

And if the priests at Ezekiel's Temple will be only those from the line of Zadok,

THAT cuts down on the number who could be priests at all - much less the High Priest.

Maybe Zadok himself will become the forever High Priest in this scenario.

 

 Ezekiel 40:46  "and the room facing north is for the priests who guard the altar. These are the sons of Zadok, who are the only Levites who may draw near to the LORD to minister before him." (NIV)

 

Ezekiel 43:19 "You are to give a young bull as a sin offering to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who come near to minister before me, declares the Sovereign LORD. (Eze 43:19 NIV)

 

This verse has the sin offering continued. 

 

Ezekiel 44:15 "'But the Levitical priests, who are descendants of Zadok and who guarded my sanctuary when the Israelites went astray from me, are to come near to minister before me; they are to stand before me to offer sacrifices of fat and blood, declares the Sovereign LORD. (Eze 44:15 NIV)

 

Ezekiel 48:11, also designates the descendants of Zadok as the priests for the coming Messianic Temple.

 

OR - it could be that this vision was a PROPHECY, in symbols.

Zadok and his "faithful priests" were a TYPE - symbolic of the

"faithful priests" who stood by the LORD, and especially by Christ. 

 

If EVERYONE from the "first resurrection" "will be priests of God and of Christ" -

THAT convinces me that the coming "priesthood" will be those from the resurrection of the redeemed.

It will have nothing to do with DNA bloodlines.  It will all be about faith, and faithfulness. 

[Ron Amnsn]

Paul's point was that NO ONE - ever - actually KEPT the Law. 

 

I don't think Paul was hung up on people keeping the Law perfectly without ever sinning.  God's Law of Moses contained provisions for sin-- those who sinned and then followed the instructions in the Law to deal with sin were still keeping the Law.  That's how the New Testament could say of Zacharias and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, "They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." (Luke 1:6)

 

In Romans 2 Paul says, "but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law ... ". (verses 13,14)  So when Paul says a few verses later, "For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision," (verse 25) Paul is not saying that it's impossible for circumcision to be of value. The issue for Paul is "through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?" (verse 23)  

 

Paul is aware that everyone sins. If a person sins and then behaves as if sinning is okay, that is a problem.  In that case his circumcision becomes uncircumcision because he is no longer interested in honoring the covenant with God.  But if a person sins and then acknowledges that it was wrong to sin, and repents and turns away from the sin, then circumcision is of value because the person is still honoring the covenant of which circumcision is the sign.

 

 

[Lauralea]

Sorry was replyng to a post that got edited out.