• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

An Incident with Messianic Believers that repeated the actual NT issue

EarlyActs

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2023
Messages
3,883
Reaction score
489
Points
83
I would like to know if the Messianics here would be interested in my account from 15 years ago with a Messianic group. Hinged on Acts 9, 10, I found myself being treated as many people in the background of the NT were treated by those in Judaism. I won't spell it out unless there is a commitment to hear the whole thing for constructive purposes--for corrective reasons.
 
I would like to know if the Messianics here would be interested in my account from 15 years ago with a Messianic group. Hinged on Acts 9, 10, I found myself being treated as many people in the background of the NT were treated by those in Judaism. I won't spell it out unless there is a commitment to hear the whole thing for constructive purposes--for corrective reasons.
I would be interested.
 
About 20 years ago, I was in my 50s, and single. I was on the Christian Mingle site one day looking into potential partners. (This account will be partly romantic in nature, but you will see that this easily subtracts and the remaining is the exact NT background issue found in most of its historic social incidents).

I came across a Jewish woman right across the Canadian border from me. I don't know if you have ever used a dating site like this but, just as in ordinary life, there are times when you can tell there is an inherently strong connection, fairly quickly, and that without a picture of her. There was a substantial theological interest shared; she knew the master's program I had taken in Vancouver; she was never married so there was not a complicating factor on her side. I had two boys at home and she was very good at expressing stable and sensible things in regard to them. Since my master's research initially was about Luke-Acts and the Jewish revolt, she was especially interested in absorbing that.

After about 10 hours of 'chat' (which was new), I decided to inquire about a trip to her city to meet her, which was across a ferry route from me, and would mean staying over. I began to make inquiries and get details from her as to how to meet. She said there was a problem.
At first I thought she did not understand that I would find my own place to stay and there was nothing inappropriate about that.

This was endearing and I believed at that point, I had really found an honest partner, and this would go somewhere positive.

'Oh, no, I understand all that. It's something else. I'm in a Messianic fellowship, and my elders say I have to ask you about something else... I need to know what you believe about Acts 9-10 before we go any further.'

I recounted what I could from memory, having a strong NT historical background.

'But it's about the food at the gentile's homes. I know Peter went into the home, but what about the food?'

So explained that Peter ate the food because twice God told him 'take and eat.'

'I'm sorry, then there is nothing I can do and have to say goodbye. We don't believe he ate the food even though he was there at their home and had the visions and they believed the Gospel you and I believe. Goodbye.'

I'm pretty sure I tried twice to say 'If you'll let me explain, I think your elders are having you treat me the same way the Judaizers of early Acts, and down the stretch, treated the believers. That this was actually the same issue over and over throughout all Paul's work.'

But since this was on chat, and she had said goodbye, there was no way to get a response, and I had no other information about her. Or I could travel there and find Messianic fellowships until I found her. Paul had it worse of course, because he would be harrassed for not agreeing. Or for writing Romans 14-15.

So I find that this kind of thing permeates Messianic fellowships. More recently I asked one of them about their online doctrinal statement. Almost everything was great--consistent with the NT. But one item was that the land of Israel was sacred.

I reached the office on the phone and mentioned how Prager describes the 'trinity' of Judaism: Yahweh--torah--eretz (God, Moses books, the land). And asked how they as Messianics put the land on the same order of things as Judaism. But she said they don't discuss these things; you just accept it--or not. Btw, I have found that they are welcome at many Calvary Chapel sites, and sometimes rent space there, as, for ex., a hispanic CC might.
 
Thanks for sharing. I met my wife through a Facebook Messianic Singles group. I had started a relationship before with a woman before I met my wife to be, but she had broken up with my because I had misunderstood something that she had said and didn't realize the error until later, so I also understand the struggles of communicating online. I'm also a fan of getting dealbreakers out of the way as soon as possible, though it seems better if she had been willing to first discuss how to interpret those chapters rather that just cutting things off. There were a couple of moderators in who decided start with all of their dealbreakers and come up with all of the reasons why they shouldn't get married, who decided to get married when they couldn't find any good reasons why they shouldn't.

If you had a Jewish person as honored guest over for dinner, then most people would avoid serving them pork, so I don't see any reason to assume that Peter eating with Gentiles mean that he wasn't continuing to keep kosher. In regard to Peter's vision, the key to correctly understanding it is understanding why he refused to kill and eat one of the clean animals in accordance with what the Torah permits. Peter notably did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean (akathartos) but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common (koinos) and God notably only rebuked Peter for referring to what He had made clean as being common, yet his vision is commonly interpreted as if Peter had been rebuked for referring to what God had made clean as being unclean. Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that the Torah prohibits eating them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.

While both Greek words refer to a type of defilement the Bible never uses them interchangeable, hence why Peter used both words, and it is equivocation to translate both words into English as "defile" and then interpret the use of "koinos" as if they had said "akathartos". The Septuagint consistently uses "akathartos" in the context of unclean animals while the NT uses "koinos" in the context of the traditions of the elders or opinions of men (Mark 7, Matthew 15). Likewise, in Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle dipuatlbe matters of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted in a way that turns Paul against obeying the commands of God and the use of "koinos" should not be interpreted as if Paul has used the word "akathartos" instead.

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 Torah 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. Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked. So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example and the problem that the NT has with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to become followers of Christ but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised (become Jews) in order to become saved (Acts 15:1).

In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His children to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speaking against obeying the Torah, so it is either incorrect to interpret Paul as doing that (my position) or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to the Torah.

There is variety within Messianic synagogues just as there is variety it churches.
 
Thanks for sharing. I met my wife through a Facebook Messianic Singles group. I had started a relationship before with a woman before I met my wife to be, but she had broken up with my because I had misunderstood something that she had said and didn't realize the error until later, so I also understand the struggles of communicating online. I'm also a fan of getting dealbreakers out of the way as soon as possible, though it seems better if she had been willing to first discuss how to interpret those chapters rather that just cutting things off. There were a couple of moderators in who decided start with all of their dealbreakers and come up with all of the reasons why they shouldn't get married, who decided to get married when they couldn't find any good reasons why they shouldn't.

If you had a Jewish person as honored guest over for dinner, then most people would avoid serving them pork, so I don't see any reason to assume that Peter eating with Gentiles mean that he wasn't continuing to keep kosher. In regard to Peter's vision, the key to correctly understanding it is understanding why he refused to kill and eat one of the clean animals in accordance with what the Torah permits. Peter notably did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean (akathartos) but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common (koinos) and God notably only rebuked Peter for referring to what He had made clean as being common, yet his vision is commonly interpreted as if Peter had been rebuked for referring to what God had made clean as being unclean. Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that the Torah prohibits eating them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.

While both Greek words refer to a type of defilement the Bible never uses them interchangeable, hence why Peter used both words, and it is equivocation to translate both words into English as "defile" and then interpret the use of "koinos" as if they had said "akathartos". The Septuagint consistently uses "akathartos" in the context of unclean animals while the NT uses "koinos" in the context of the traditions of the elders or opinions of men (Mark 7, Matthew 15). Likewise, in Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle dipuatlbe matters of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted in a way that turns Paul against obeying the commands of God and the use of "koinos" should not be interpreted as if Paul has used the word "akathartos" instead.

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 Torah 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. Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked. So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example and the problem that the NT has with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to become followers of Christ but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised (become Jews) in order to become saved (Acts 15:1).

In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His children to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speaking against obeying the Torah, so it is either incorrect to interpret Paul as doing that (my position) or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to the Torah.

There is variety within Messianic synagogues just as there is variety it churches.

What does this mean about Peter:
as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles
When did Peter incorrectly identify Gentiles?

So why doesn't the settlement letter of Acts 15 mention circumcision? Yet it's got 3 lines about foods.

Interesting to hear the line about proving a prophet, when I only recall the one about proof of his predictions.
 
What does this mean about Peter:
as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles
When did Peter incorrectly identify Gentiles?

So why doesn't the settlement letter of Acts 15 mention circumcision? Yet it's got 3 lines about foods.

Interesting to hear the line about proving a prophet, when I only recall the one about proof of his predictions.
Acts 10:28 “And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.”

The primary role of a prophet was not to make predictions but to speak for God, which was mainly in the capacity of calling the Israelites to repent from idolatry or taking advantage of the poor, the widow, and the orphan, and to return to obedience to the Torah. I grew up being taught to have a negative view of obeying the Torah and used to use Acts 15 to argue against it as being a heavy burden that no one could bear, but I began to see things that didn’t add up, such as with that meaning that the Jerusalem Council were false prophets.

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying the Torah, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so I eventually came to realize that if I was going to continue to believe that the Psalms are Scripture, then I needed to also believe that they express a correct view of obeying the Torah and that I therefore needed to change my view to match the Psalms. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Torah of the Lord and who mediate on it day and night, so I couldn't continue to believe in the truth of those works as Scripture while not allowing them to shape my view of obeying the Torah. Moreover, the Jesus and the Apostles considered the Psalms to be Scripture, so they should be interpreted in light of the fact that they were in complete agreement with the view of obeying the Torah that he express, especially because Paul also said that he delighted in obeying it (Romans 7:22).

Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so it doesn't make sense to interpret them in a way that turns them against following what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, yet people commonly interpret him as speaking against living by things that have come from the mouth of God, such as what God spoke in Deuteronomy 14 in regard to refraining from eating unclean animals. Likewise, if someone believed that a set of instructions were accurately described in Psalms 19:7-11, then they would jump at the opportunity to come under them, but that is incompatible with also viewing those instructions as being heavy burden that no one can bear.

In Acts 15:10-11, it make it clear that the heavy burden that no one could bear does not refer to the Torah, but to a means of of salvation that is an alternative to salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea in Acts 15:1. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason, then according to Galatians 5:2, he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. The reason why God commanded circumcision was not in order to become saved, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correct lying ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

In Acts 15:6-7, Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed the Gospel, which called for repentance and obedience to the Torah (Matthew 4:15-23), so he was affirming that Gentiles should obey it in agreement with the Pharisees from among the believers (Acts 15:5). In Act 15:8-9, Peter argued that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, which in in accordance with Ezekiel 36:26-27, where God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, so again, he was in agreement with Gentiles obeying the Torah. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example, so the issue they were debating was not whether Gentile followers of Christ should follow Christ, but whether salvation is by circumcision or by grace. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

Either Acts 15:19-21, contains and exhaustive list of what is required for mature believers or it does not, so it would be contradictory for someone to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being an non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow. In Acts 15:19-21, it was not given as exhaustive list for mature believes but as a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which they excused by saying that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues, so the intention was to avoid overwhelming Gentiles by teaching them over time, not to rule that Gentiles followers of Christ shouldn't follow over 99% of what he taught.
 
Acts 10:28 “And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.”

The primary role of a prophet was not to make predictions but to speak for God, which was mainly in the capacity of calling the Israelites to repent from idolatry or taking advantage of the poor, the widow, and the orphan, and to return to obedience to the Torah. I grew up being taught to have a negative view of obeying the Torah and used to use Acts 15 to argue against it as being a heavy burden that no one could bear, but I began to see things that didn’t add up, such as with that meaning that the Jerusalem Council were false prophets.

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying the Torah, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so I eventually came to realize that if I was going to continue to believe that the Psalms are Scripture, then I needed to also believe that they express a correct view of obeying the Torah and that I therefore needed to change my view to match the Psalms. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Torah of the Lord and who mediate on it day and night, so I couldn't continue to believe in the truth of those works as Scripture while not allowing them to shape my view of obeying the Torah. Moreover, the Jesus and the Apostles considered the Psalms to be Scripture, so they should be interpreted in light of the fact that they were in complete agreement with the view of obeying the Torah that he express, especially because Paul also said that he delighted in obeying it (Romans 7:22).

Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so it doesn't make sense to interpret them in a way that turns them against following what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, yet people commonly interpret him as speaking against living by things that have come from the mouth of God, such as what God spoke in Deuteronomy 14 in regard to refraining from eating unclean animals. Likewise, if someone believed that a set of instructions were accurately described in Psalms 19:7-11, then they would jump at the opportunity to come under them, but that is incompatible with also viewing those instructions as being heavy burden that no one can bear.

In Acts 15:10-11, it make it clear that the heavy burden that no one could bear does not refer to the Torah, but to a means of of salvation that is an alternative to salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea in Acts 15:1. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason, then according to Galatians 5:2, he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. The reason why God commanded circumcision was not in order to become saved, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Torah by correct lying ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

In Acts 15:6-7, Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed the Gospel, which called for repentance and obedience to the Torah (Matthew 4:15-23), so he was affirming that Gentiles should obey it in agreement with the Pharisees from among the believers (Acts 15:5). In Act 15:8-9, Peter argued that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, which in in accordance with Ezekiel 36:26-27, where God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, so again, he was in agreement with Gentiles obeying the Torah. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example, so the issue they were debating was not whether Gentile followers of Christ should follow Christ, but whether salvation is by circumcision or by grace. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

Either Acts 15:19-21, contains and exhaustive list of what is required for mature believers or it does not, so it would be contradictory for someone to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being an non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow. In Acts 15:19-21, it was not given as exhaustive list for mature believes but as a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which they excused by saying that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues, so the intention was to avoid overwhelming Gentiles by teaching them over time, not to rule that Gentiles followers of Christ shouldn't follow over 99% of what he taught.


But Paul did not require every Gentile to be circumcised--except that all were circumcised in heart.

Act 15's list is not for mature believers. It is a tool for people in confusing times to figure out what to do.

I believe that some 'obedience to the Law' was perfunctory or to get into a circle for strategic reasons. One of those would be the vow or rite performed in Acts 21 to get access to the high priest where Paul needed to make a final warning to Israel.

How is that your "Paul" could not make a convincing enough case to save his neck at the end of Acts? Do you not take 'they worship night and day at the temple' in ch 26 to be their misguided practice, and not a compliment?

I don't have your answer about circumcision. It's not on the list for the beginning gentile believer. Why?

Even if you could answer all the questions the way you have, you have to come to terms, as I did, with the 'stoicheai tou kosmou' of Colossians and Galatians. The Law, in Gal 4:8-9, gets equated with the pagan practices of the initial stage of the Galatians:
1st, pagans
2nd, believers
3rd, imposed-upon-believers
4th, unburdened believers
The argument clearly is that there is no difference between where they started as pagans and where those 'under the Law' started.

When this expression is compared with 2 Peter 3's usage, it is clear that there is a type of pagan reverence for gaia that is the 'force' that causes its worshipper to maintain certain practices, and that Peter knew Judaizers who treated the Law the same way. This could not be disrupted.

In Colossians, this hollow philosophy that is discrediting believers (paralogizetai) is replete with neo-Judaistic features; angels have spoken; foods, seasons, days, moons are tangling the believers; the restrictions are ineffective; the 'humility' is a crass sham, etc, etc.
 
I just read Titus 2. As usual I never get the sense that Paul is in the least concerned with regulations from the Torah. Prove me wrong.
 
But Paul did not require every Gentile to be circumcised
There are reasons for Gentiles becoming circumcised that are in accordance with God's commands, so there are important lines being crossed between these three positions:

P1: Paul spoke against obeying God's commands for incorrect reasons, but never against obeying God's commands for the reasons for which they were given, so we should follow God's commands in the manner that Paul taught.
____
P2: Paul spoke against obeying God's commands for the reason for which God commanded them and we must obey God rather than man.
____
P3: Paul spoke against obeying God's commands for the reasons for which God commanded them as we should obey man rather than God.

--except that all were circumcised in heart.
Someone having a circumcised heart only refers to them being a doer of the Torah (Deuteronomy 30:6, Romans 2:25-29) while someone having a uncircumcised heart only refers to them not being a doer of the Torah (Jeremiah 9:25, Acts 7:51-53).

Act 15's list is not for mature believers. It is a tool for people in confusing times to figure out what to do.
I believe that some 'obedience to the Law' was perfunctory or to get into a circle for strategic reasons. One of those would be the vow or rite performed in Acts 21 to get access to the high priest where Paul needed to make a final warning to Israel.

How is that your "Paul" could not make a convincing enough case to save his neck at the end of Acts? Do you not take 'they worship night and day at the temple' in ch 26 to be their misguided practice, and not a compliment?

I don't have your answer about circumcision. It's not on the list for the beginning gentile believer. Why?

Even if you could answer all the questions the way you have, you have to come to terms, as I did, with the 'stoicheai tou kosmou' of Colossians and Galatians. The Law, in Gal 4:8-9, gets equated with the pagan practices of the initial stage of the Galatians:
1st, pagans
2nd, believers
3rd, imposed-upon-believers
4th, unburdened believers
The argument clearly is that there is no difference between where they started as pagans and where those 'under the Law' started.

When this expression is compared with 2 Peter 3's usage, it is clear that there is a type of pagan reverence for gaia that is the 'force' that causes its worshipper to maintain certain practices, and that Peter knew Judaizers who treated the Law the same way. This could not be disrupted.

In Colossians, this hollow philosophy that is discrediting believers (paralogizetai) is replete with neo-Judaistic features; angels have spoken; foods, seasons, days, moons are tangling the believers; the restrictions are ineffective; the 'humility' is a crass sham, etc, etc.
In regard to Colossians 2:8, the holy righteous, and good commandments of God are not taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit, or according to human traditions, and Christ set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to them, so it doesn't work to interpret that warning that it is not according to Christ to follow his example. Paul fleshed out what he was referring as the elementary principles of the world in Colossians 2:16-23 as pagans who were promoting human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, an severity to the body. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging the Colossians for celebrating God's feasts, not for refraining from doing that.

If God saved the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt in order to put them under slavery to the Torah, then it would be for slavery for God sets us free, however, Galatians 5:1 says that it is for freedom that God sets us free. In Psalms 119:142, the Torah is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of the Torah that puts us into slavery while the truth sets us free. Moreover, the Torah did not come through the line of the slave woman, but came through the line of the free woman, so it is important to correctly identify what Paul was speaking against, and that should impact how Galatians 4 is interpreted.

Likewise, in Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of someone being children of God, through faith, in Christ, and being children of Abraham and heirs of the promise is all directly connected with someone living in obedience to the Torah. Being a child of someone is metaphorically about embodying their likeness through being a doer of their character traits, which is why Jesus said in John 8:39 that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doers of the same work as him. In Matthew 23:23, Christ said that faith is one of the weightier of the Torah, and in 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked. In Galatians 4:1-7, being under the elementary principles of the world is contrasted with the adoption as sons, receiving the Spirit, and being heirs through God. In Romans 8:4-14, Paul contrasted those who are born of the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Torah, and in 1 John 3:4-10, those who are not doers of righteous works in obedience to the Torah are not children of God.

Galatians 4:8-9 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that He and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Torah is to teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3). So those who formerly did know God does not refer to those who were formerly following God's instructions for how to know Him, but to those who were not formerly following the Torah, aka former pagans. Likewise, people who were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods is also clearly referring to former pagan who were not formerly following the Torah, so Paul could not have been criticizing them for returning to follow God's instructions for how to know Him. Rather, now that they have come to know God and by know by God in obedience to the Torah, they were returning to weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, so they were returning to following pagan holy days.

In 2 Peter 3:10-18, it says that Paul is difficult to understand, that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction, to be careful not to be carried away by the error of lawless men, and to instead grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In Psalms 119:29, he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, so the way to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is by following his example of obedience to the Torah (Matthew 7:23). Moreover, we can be confident that when Paul is correctly understood that he did not promote the error of speaking against obeying the Torah.

I just read Titus 2. As usual I never get the sense that Paul is in the least concerned with regulations from the Torah. Prove me wrong.
How else do you think that the Israelites knew how to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly if not through the Torah?
 
There are reasons for Gentiles becoming circumcised that are in accordance with God's commands, so there are important lines being crossed between these three positions:

P1: Paul spoke against obeying God's commands for incorrect reasons, but never against obeying God's commands for the reasons for which they were given, so we should follow God's commands in the manner that Paul taught.
____
P2: Paul spoke against obeying God's commands for the reason for which God commanded them and we must obey God rather than man.
____
P3: Paul spoke against obeying God's commands for the reasons for which God commanded them as we should obey man rather than God.


Someone having a circumcised heart only refers to them being a doer of the Torah (Deuteronomy 30:6, Romans 2:25-29) while someone having a uncircumcised heart only refers to them not being a doer of the Torah (Jeremiah 9:25, Acts 7:51-53).




In regard to Colossians 2:8, the holy righteous, and good commandments of God are not taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit, or according to human traditions, and Christ set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to them, so it doesn't work to interpret that warning that it is not according to Christ to follow his example. Paul fleshed out what he was referring as the elementary principles of the world in Colossians 2:16-23 as pagans who were promoting human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, an severity to the body. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging the Colossians for celebrating God's feasts, not for refraining from doing that.

If God saved the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt in order to put them under slavery to the Torah, then it would be for slavery for God sets us free, however, Galatians 5:1 says that it is for freedom that God sets us free. In Psalms 119:142, the Torah is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of the Torah that puts us into slavery while the truth sets us free. Moreover, the Torah did not come through the line of the slave woman, but came through the line of the free woman, so it is important to correctly identify what Paul was speaking against, and that should impact how Galatians 4 is interpreted.

Likewise, in Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of someone being children of God, through faith, in Christ, and being children of Abraham and heirs of the promise is all directly connected with someone living in obedience to the Torah. Being a child of someone is metaphorically about embodying their likeness through being a doer of their character traits, which is why Jesus said in John 8:39 that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doers of the same work as him. In Matthew 23:23, Christ said that faith is one of the weightier of the Torah, and in 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked. In Galatians 4:1-7, being under the elementary principles of the world is contrasted with the adoption as sons, receiving the Spirit, and being heirs through God. In Romans 8:4-14, Paul contrasted those who are born of the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Torah, and in 1 John 3:4-10, those who are not doers of righteous works in obedience to the Torah are not children of God.

Galatians 4:8-9 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that He and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Torah is to teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3). So those who formerly did know God does not refer to those who were formerly following God's instructions for how to know Him, but to those who were not formerly following the Torah, aka former pagans. Likewise, people who were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods is also clearly referring to former pagan who were not formerly following the Torah, so Paul could not have been criticizing them for returning to follow God's instructions for how to know Him. Rather, now that they have come to know God and by know by God in obedience to the Torah, they were returning to weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, so they were returning to following pagan holy days.

In 2 Peter 3:10-18, it says that Paul is difficult to understand, that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction, to be careful not to be carried away by the error of lawless men, and to instead grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In Psalms 119:29, he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, so the way to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is by following his example of obedience to the Torah (Matthew 7:23). Moreover, we can be confident that when Paul is correctly understood that he did not promote the error of speaking against obeying the Torah.


How else do you think that the Israelites knew how to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly if not through the Torah?


Re last line:
1, everyone should distinguish between core values and rituals, like Paul did in Col 2.
2, the original Law was given when a specific paganism needed to be resisted. It would be ridiculous not to resist other kinds ( in China or C America) simply bc there was no exact line from the Torah about it.
 
Re last line:
1, everyone should distinguish between core values and rituals, like Paul did in Col 2.
2, the original Law was given when a specific paganism needed to be resisted. It would be ridiculous not to resist other kinds ( in China or C America) simply bc there was no exact line from the Torah about it.
What standard do you use determine what is or is not a core value? Is holiness a core value? I agree that paganism should be resisted even if a form of it is not specifically mentioned by the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Re last line:
1, everyone should distinguish between core values and rituals, like Paul did in Col 2.
2, the original Law was given when a specific paganism needed to be resisted. It would be ridiculous not to resist other kinds ( in China or C America) simply bc there was no exact line from the Torah about it.
The character traits of God are the core values are, which includes holiness and God's law is His instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits, so things being core values is the basis that things are included in God's law in first place. I can list a number of verses that call us to holiness if you want, but it is clear to me that holiness is a core value, and if that is the case, then you have no basis for excluding holy days from being core values.
 
The character traits of God are the core values are, which includes holiness and God's law is His instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits, so things being core values is the basis that things are included in God's law in first place. I can list a number of verses that call us to holiness if you want, but it is clear to me that holiness is a core value, and if that is the case, then you have no basis for excluding holy days from being core values.

Of course there would. Our actions have to mean something to those whom we are evangelizing. The direction of the NT is away from anything external or mechanical that would not communicate that. It seeks those things about the heart that demonstrate a value.

"It is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out."
 
Of course there would. Our actions have to mean something to those whom we are evangelizing. The direction of the NT is away from anything external or mechanical that would not communicate that. It seeks those things about the heart that demonstrate a value.

"It is not what goes into a man's mouth that defiles him, but what comes out."
The correct understanding of the deeper meaning of the Bible is never contrary to the plain meaning of what was given to teach us the deeper meaning, so we should always remain grounded in the plain meaning. For example, the character traits of God are the deeper meaning behind God’s law that it was given in order to teach us how to embody. It would be overwhelming to us for God to exhaustively teach us how to embody His righteousness in every possible situation, so the point is to teach us how to do that by teaching us a limited set of examples that all have that trait in common. If we correctly understand God’s righteousness, then it will lead to take actions that embody that trait in accordance with the examples that God gave in order to teach us how to embody it, but we will also be able to extrapolate how to be a doer of that trait even in situations that God’s law does not specifically address. If someone thought that the Bible teaches us the spiritual principle of love is leading us away from taking external actions that embody our love in accordance with what God’s law instructs, then they would be missing the whole point. Correctly understanding love will never lead away from following God’s instructions for how to do that.

In regard to your quote, the Greek words “akathartos” and “koinos” both refer to a type of defilement, but the Bible never uses them interchangeably, so someone using the word “koinos” should not be interpreted as if they had said “akathartos”. The Septuagint consistently uses “akathartos” in the context of unclean animals while the NT uses “koinos” un the context of the traditions of the elders. In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, Jesus was criticizing Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so Jesus should not be interpreted as setting aside the commands of God.
 
Back
Top