Abraham
(By Urs, Fair Use)
Salvation and the Art of Not Wetting Your Pants
By Scout
This morning, I went for a hike. I was high up on the side of a canyon with mountains off in the distance. I stopped to take a leak and momentarily ran into a problem – a problem specific to me. I am not circumcised. So sometimes, if I am not careful, my apparatus causes the stream to go in an unexpected direction. And I thought I had wet my pant leg but I did not. I did think how that most men don’t deal with this concern. It is a logistical burden and, ironically, I am a little part Jewish. I am your actual descendant of Abraham. I can’t tell you why my parents did not get me circumcised. Probably no good reason.
My son was circumcised on the eighth day. This made me realize that the only valid Mosaic circumcision is on the eighth day per scripture. If you were circumcised as the Torah said, you were part of an elite group that would inherit the promises made to Abraham. But circumcision also has a history in the Gentile community. Historians think that circumcision has been practiced for 10,000 years. The Egyptians in the Sixth Dynasty did it. It is an ancient surgical procedure – maybe the first one.
I am curious about what the Circumcision Party, that clashed with Paul, expected First Century Gentile Christians to do about circumcisions that did not happen on the eighth day. You can’t climb into a time machine and go back and re-do historical events. Do you get a special dispensation for the wrong day from the Jewish priests so your circumcision can be rendered valid? I think originally the Circumcision Party was not making an argument that Gentiles who wanted to convert to Christianity should simply undergo circumcision. They specifically asserted in Acts 15 that it was circumcision “after the manner of Moses.” Not just any circumcision but eighth-day circumcision. I think they were contending that uncircumcised or improperly circumcised Gentiles could not be saved - ever. It was a way of saying that the promises of Christianity were for devout eighth-day Jews only. Maybe after the Jerusalem Conference, the Circumcision Party softened up a little on this.
I am glad that circumcision now is not by hands in the flesh but of the heart. Had I lived in the time of Paul, I would be disturbed if a member of the Circumcision Party sidled up to me and said that if I wanted to be a Christian and be saved I would need to get circumcised. But I have had Armstrongists tell me that I could not eat pork (I don’t like it anyway. Smells funny.) Or tell me I had to unleaven my house. Some Armstrongist denominations have little Mosaic quirks that they elevate proudly to requirements for salvation – like observing New Moons, maybe. Or believing in this or that oddity said from the pulpit. It sets them apart. And it means that they are going to the Place of Safety and will receive a better salvation and everyone else can pound sand. Because the others do not have the special knowledge that they have about New Moons. Or maybe about not eating mushrooms. Or maybe about not eating jell-o. Or whatever it is that makes them the only ones in God’s inner circle.
The Circumcision Party wanted to contain salvation. They wanted to control it and limit access. They wanted only a very few admitted to the inner circle. The Jerusalem Council blew all that away but there are some who still cling to it after 2,000 years. They also want to contain salvation. The smaller and more exclusive their denomination, the better. This plainly goes against the spirit of Christ who wanted the Gospel of salvation in Christ to be spread far and wide. Even among the Gentiles. This containment view will probably be one of the last errors to die when Christ returns. But, let me tell you, I am seriously happy that the Bible unequivocally states that physical circumcision is not necessary for salvation, even though other physical Torahic activities are not so dramatically set aside in scripture. I shudder to think what the misguided zealots might have forced on me.
42 comments:
Great post. Yes indeed our salvation does not hinge on the physical act of circumcision. As Romans tells us, it depends on Gods mercy, on Him who shows mercy. It is by grace and that through faith. I have Jewish friends who absolutely refused to have their two boys circumcised. And don’t participate in their local Jewish community sadly and have separated themselves from it entirely. The family had to leave Egypt in the mid 1950s and I don’t doubt that experience for them all, had an impact on their children and their children following. Circumcision is a rite of passage for males as are the Bar and Bat Mitzvah ceremonies within Judaism. I often joke with my Jewish friends, myself being a member of the tribe as well, that our traditions have become Law. We have become better Catholics than the Catholics themselves lol. But at the end of the day circumcision is not a requirement for salvation.
the only valid Mosaic circumcision is on the eighth day per scripture
False. Scout should know better. It's not hard to figure out. Eighth-day circumcision applies to newborn males born to Jewish parents. Convert males are circumcised much later in life, yet their circumcision is equally valid and makes them equally part of the Jewish community. Only after these converts are circumcised and enter the Jewish community does it become incumbent upon them to have their male children circumcised on the eighth day.
Anonymous 4:56
Technically, you are correct (Exodus 12:48-49). But I am not exegeting the practice of circumcision as described in the Torah. I am attempting to read the political situation. I am conjecturing that an eighth-day circumcision was the gold standard and anything else was of lesser value. I am also conjecturing that the Circumcision Party was trying to use eighth-day circumcision to stop the spread of the Gospel to Gentiles. I think they regarded the conversion of Gentiles as a Peter and Paul thing. And to the Circumcision Party this was unacceptable. Central parts of the NT deal with the acceptability of the Gentiles. This is not for nought.
There is no accomodation in the Torah for an adult Egyptian who had been circumcised on the 9th day. He cannot be circumcised again. He permanently has a non-acceptable circumcision. Many Gentiles seeking to join the Christian movement in the First Century may have fallen intio this category.
It makes no difference to Christianity. All the complexities of circumcision and, for instance, Sabbath keeping don't mean anything. Circumcision is of the heart and Christ is our Sabbath. It is the Circumcision Party that stressed over this and tried to make political hay of it.
Scout
My suspicioun based on dealings with ACOGs ministers is that they are trying to define the church culture in the millennium. Their viciousness when dealing with even slight dissent being one example. As stupid as it seems, I also suspect some ministers are trying to lower the standards for admission into God's kingdom. To them, it's a back door into His kingdom. Why repent when you can get into God's kingdom by "cheating?"
There is no accomodation in the Torah for an adult Egyptian who had been circumcised on the 9th day. He cannot be circumcised again. He permanently has a non-acceptable circumcision. Many Gentiles seeking to join the Christian movement in the First Century may have fallen intio this category.
Your conjecture is incorrect. Just as it is done today, if a circumcised male desired to convert to Judaism, all they would need to do is have a tiny ritual drop of blood drawn from their already-circumcised member. Of course, even that "all they would need" was a bit much for many proselyte God-fearers who liked Judaism but didn't like it enough to shed their blood for membership.
Abe and HWA were lone voices in the wilderness!
Great post Scout (as usual), We all tend to think I would have done this back in that day or done that. Yea, and it’s that attitude of inner circling that we can watch out for. The Bible does say little flock, but is it little because armstrongist want to keep it that way? With them it’s who baptized you lineage, then who baptized that minister who baptized you, and if they were baptized by Herbert W. Armstrong, then you are more special.
I’m glad Paul spent so much time on the circumcision doctrine even after the Jerusalem conference. He helped those Gentiles with this issue from those inner circle circumcision cliques. I’m always reminded of how Paul stressed that Abraham was accounted for righteousness before he was circumcised (Romans 4:9-12). (as he, Abram also wan't circumcised on the 8th day).
What's also interesting is the circumcision is not really mentioned in Hebrews or the list of doctrines in (Hebrews 6:1-3). And this is to the jewish Christians.
Tank
Anonymous 7:30
AI on Google coughed that up when I was looking around. Where and when did that protocol come into being. That is, the drop of blood. It certainly is not in the OT. Was that principle around in the First Century when the Circumcision Party was having its heyday? That is my context.
Scout
Nice attempt to connect circumcision to the holy days and food laws. It won't hold up though.
And as a side note, the complete removal of the foreskin is not what God commanded.
For those that are interested:
https://cirp.org/library/history/peron2/
i don't have a lot of desposable time to research this topic this morning, but the Talmud may contain the answers regarding the droplet of blood. What I found in a quick search was thoughts as to what should be done if the eighth day fell on Shabbat, or circumcision in cases of androgenous (hermaphrodite) male babies. As with Armstrongism, there was the written law (Torah), and the oral law, which in the case of the Jews was recorded in the Talmud. I'd have to guess that most likely the answer to the drop of blood question is contained in Talmud.
BB
hattafat dam berit
The transliterated Hebrew above refers to thte drop-of-blood ritual. This is what Google AI says about it:
"...its history dates back to the compilation of the Mishna (circa 200 CE) where rabbis addressed scenarios of individuals who needed to fulfill the covenant despite not having a foreskin to remove, including those already circumcised in non-Jewish practices or those born with atypical genitalia."
This would date the idea of hattafat dam berit to be over a hundred years later than the golden age of the Circumcision Party - which golden age is the chronological context for my observations. The idea of hattafat dam berit rose in the post Second Temple period after 70 AD when the Torah had to be repackaged to function in the Diaspora without a Temple for ritiual practice. My guess is that this non-Torahic revision was a concession to the altered and tragic religous circumstances of the Jews.
Scout
Anonymous 5:38 wrote, “Nice attempt to connect circumcision to the holy days and food laws. It won't hold up though.”
I believe the connection holds up exceedingly well. Circumcision is a physical ritual, a sign of covenant, that is required to receive the Promises made to Abraham which are essentially the promises of salvation. Galatians 3:16 displays the direct connection between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant promises in Christ. That is how important circumcision was. Such great promises as are attached to circumcision are not directly attached to the Sabbath and Holy Days. They Sabbath and Holy Days are instead subsidiary components of the Law of Moses – the covenant that Paul said could not disannul the Abrahamic Covenant. The difference in rank is apparent.
And what happened with circumcision is canonical for how the Torah was treated in the New Testament. In the New Testament, the all-important physical circumcision was set aside and replaced by circumcision of the heart in Christ. Who would have thought that the promises-based physical circumcision could ever be replaced by a spiritual rendition? In the same manner, the physical seventh day Sabbath was set aside and replaced by Christ as our Rest, our Sabbath. The model is consistently applied and this is why circumcision was a pivot point for Paul in his contentions with the Circumcision Party. It was about salvation itself.
It is not only a “nice attempt”, it is an attempt that you and whatever pulpit you follow have no credible answer for.
Scout
Well the actual connection to circumcision is baptism. Both represent a seal. What we like about the circumcision doctrine is that it correlates to having the foreskins of our hearts to be circumcised which is mentioned in both testaments. And I am wondering can we correlate the "circumcision party" with armstrongism "baptism party?" I wasn't in worldwide, but came in under a splinter group.
Scout has underscored the absurdity of the perspective of the Legalists. As Jesus indicated, circumcision originated in God's covenant with Abraham and was included in God's covenant with the children of Israel, because they were descendants of Abraham (John 7:22). In accordance with God's instructions to Moses (Leviticus 12:2-3), Jesus was himself circumcised on the eighth day after his birth (Luke 2:21). This, of course, was done so that Jesus would truly be the fulfillment of the Law (Torah) and the prophets.
Along those same lines, it was also anticipated in both the covenant with Abraham and the covenant with Israel, that humankind would one day be circumcised in their hearts through Jesus the Christ (Genesis 17:1-14, Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, Romans 2:25-29). Hence, although circumcision and the weekly Sabbath are identified as symbols of the Old Covenant, Armstrongists (like the Circumcision Party of Christians before them) cannot seem to comprehend that both are inextricably associated with the OLD Covenant. In other words, both are symbols of the fact that the Israelites were responsible for ALL of the commandments in Torah! This is made even clearer by the account in the book of Acts regarding the Jerusalem Council.
Armstrongists conveniently leave out part of what is recorded there to support their contention that Christians are obligated to obey some or all of the commandments of Torah. Nevertheless, they cannot get around the fact that we read: " But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them AND TO ORDER THEM TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES." (Acts 15:5) This is what the Jerusalem Council settled. They decided that since Christ had fulfilled the Law (ALL of it), that Christians did NOT have to become Israelites and be subject to the commandments of Torah (except for the Two which Christ identified as summarizing God's Law and fulfilling the spirit of the Law).
......as summarizing God's Law......
Which laws are the "Two" summarizing? Betcha one of those laws has the word "day" in it.
Also the Circumcision Party and the British Israel Party, acts in the same manner. It propagandizes one group to receive the blessings from Abraham, while others or Gentiles are excluded. Some sort of physical salvation.
"Circumcision is a physical ritual, a sign of covenant, that is required to receive the Promises made to Abraham which are essentially the promises of salvation."
The promises made to Abraham are purely physical. There is nothing about eternal life in the Abrahamic covenant.
Willfully ignoring God's instructions concerning the 10 commandments, food laws, etc. will disqualify you because that is rebellion.
Anonymous 9:01 wrote, “And I am wondering can we correlate the "circumcision party" with armstrongism "baptism party?"
There is a connection in symbolism between circumcision and baptism as you point out. But one is not a substitute for the other. Circumcision exists as a religious ritual in the OT. Both circumcision and baptism exist in the NT. In the NT, however, circumcision has no physical expression. In the NT, converts are both baptized and circumcised of the heart. Colossians 2:11-12 seems to be considering both Baptism and circumcision as two separate, valid features rather than equating them. Further, the issue of Baptism as a NT substitute for circumcision did not emerge at the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 and one would think that it should have. Instead, physical circumcision was replaced not by Baptism but by spiritual circumcision of the heart as explained elsewhere in the NT.
I do believe we can validly connect Armstrongism with the Circumcision Party. So much so that I would not refer, as you have, to Armstrongism as the “Baptism Party.” The article at the link below discusses the similarities between Armstrongism and the Circumcision Party.
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-roots-of-armstrongism-in-first.html
Scout
Anonymous 5:28 wrote, “The promises made to Abraham are purely physical. There is nothing about eternal life in the Abrahamic covenant. Willfully ignoring God's instructions concerning the 10 commandments, food laws, etc. will disqualify you because that is rebellion.”
Galatians 3: 13-14 says,
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
It is clear that Paul is not speaking of “purely physical” promises. In fact, Paul is speaking of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ as the ultimate effect of the Abrahamic Promises. And the great news of this ultimate effect comprises the Gospel (The Gospel is not about the prophecies of the end of the age. That is a shrewd misdirection.)
In your second sentence above, you are referring to the Torah as a requirement for salvation. When Armstrongists use such words as “qualify” and “disqualify”, they are referring to salvation by works. You are saying the same thing that the Circumcision Party was saying in principle. You may exclude circumcision and the sacrifices but you are nevertheless speaking of earning salvation by keeping a streamlined version of the Torah.
I will admit that the Jews did not have much access to the expanded concept of salvation that is expressed in Galatians 3 above. It was not until the time of Daniel that this understanding began to take hold. By the time of the Late Second Temple period, the Pharisees believed in eternal life and the Sadducees did not. The Sadducees held a minority view.
I may have taken your statement wrong. After all, I am trying to unpack a sound-bite which can be tricky.
Scout
Anonymous 5:28 wrote, “The promises made to Abraham are purely physical. There is nothing about eternal life in the Abrahamic covenant. Willfully ignoring God's instructions concerning the 10 commandments, food laws, etc. will disqualify you because that is rebellion.”
Galatians 3: 13-14 says,
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
It is clear that Paul is not speaking of “purely physical” promises. In fact, Paul is speaking of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ as the ultimate effect of the Abrahamic Promises. And the great news of this ultimate effect comprises the Gospel (The Gospel is not about the prophecies of the end of the age. That is a shrewd misdirection.)
In your second sentence above, you are referring to the Torah as a requirement for salvation. When Armstrongists use such words as “qualify” and “disqualify”, they are referring to salvation by works. You are saying the same thing that the Circumcision Party was saying in principle. You may exclude circumcision and the sacrifices but you are nevertheless speaking of earning salvation by keeping a streamlined version of the Torah.
I will admit that the Jews did not have much access to the expanded concept of salvation that is expressed in Galatians 3 above. It was not until the time of Daniel that this understanding began to take hold. By the time of the Late Second Temple period, the Pharisees believed in eternal life and the Sadducees did not. The Sadducees held a minority view.
I may have taken your statement wrong. After all, I am trying to unpack a sound-bite which can be tricky.
Scout
Thanks for the link, he physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision of the heart.
Tank
In regards to the weekly sabbath:
Some teach that Hebrews 4 defines the seventh-day Sabbath commandment in the Decalogue as a shadow-type law pointing forward to a spiritual rest in Christ. They view the Sabbath in the same way the Old Testament sacrifices pointed forward to Christ's atoning death on the cross. They teach that once we have found "spiritual rest" in Christ, we no longer need to observe the Sabbath day, and that keeping the seventh day is a form of bondage and an act of personal works.
It is true that the primary message of Hebrews 4 is to emphasize the believer's rest of grace. The main point in Hebrews 3:7-4:11 is for Jewish Christians to persevere in faith and not fall into unbelief and disobedience as did their forefathers. But the reference to the Sabbath in Hebrews 4 is not a shadow of that rest in Christ, but an illustration of that rest.
A shadow or type suggests a fulfillment by Jesus that passes away. For example, when Christ died as the sacrificial Lamb and the temple curtain was torn from top to bottom, it signaled the end of the sacrificial system. We no longer sacrifice lambs because Jesus fulfilled the shadow that pointed forward to the cross.
The Ten Commandments are not part of the types or ceremonies established by God to point the Israelites toward the coming sacrifice of Jesus. The moral law of God is eternal and does not pass away (Psalm 119:160). Presenting the Sabbath as only Jewish is typically an attempt to pluck the fourth commandment out of the law of God and toss it aside. It is presented as a burden to be taken away by Jesus. But God never created the Sabbath to be a burden. To call the Sabbath a burden is a distortion.
The Sabbath is not only for the Jews, but it was a blessing instituted at Creation for all humanity before sin even entered our planet. Even the Old Testament description of true Sabbath-keeping is a picture of freedom, rest, and delight. Isaiah 58:13, 14, tells us that there is a very special blessing involved in keeping the Sabbath:
"If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable, and shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words, then you shall delight yourself in the Lord; and I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth, and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father."
When a believer keeps the Sabbath, he acknowledges the saving work of Christ and ceases from his own works. "Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: 'Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you' " (Exodus 31:13). The Sabbath is a sign that God saves us. We cannot save ourselves.
The true sign of salvation by faith is found in the Sabbath. The sign of salvation by works will be found in a substitute Sabbath put in place by humans. When people determine to set aside God's law and keep a day of their own choosing, they are not truly resting in grace, but attempting to be saved by their own works. There is no better way to spot such a deceitful religion than by a spurious or false Sabbath. It really comes down to choosing my way or God's way.
Hebrews 4 shows that the Israelites, during the time of the exodus, could have found the spiritual rest of grace if they had exercised faith in God. The sacrificial system pointed them to the gospel. So also the people during the time of Joshua might have experienced that rest in grace, as also the Israelites in the time of David.
The promise of experiencing God's grace is still available to us, but it will come only by exercising faith in Jesus. Such faith will show itself in obedience to all of God's law (John 14:15), not in following the traditions of humans who tell us to set aside the fourth commandment.
Anonymous 2:54
I agree with much of what you have written except the content of the eighth paragraph – beginning with “The true sign of salvation by faith is found in the Sabbath.” The beliefs that you present in the eighth paragraph are highly customized and I am not sure how you exegeted them. Hebrews 4 is not speaking of the seventh day sabbath as a sign. That is something that you have innovated. Hebrews 4 speaks of the seventh day sabbath as a metaphor for entering into the Rest of Jesus by faith (Psalm 62:1 for example). Sunday is not considered a replacement for the Sabbath by Christians. The Sabbath continues and it is now Jesus. The fourth commandment is still in force and it is now through Jesus as our Rest. We are in Christ through the faith of Christ that dwells in us. We have received salvation. And the entrance into rest is not defined by a day at all. It pertains to our continuous condition, moment-to-moment.
Armstrongists have not entered into the rest described in Hebrews chapters 3 and 4. They strive for salvation through trying to “qualify for the Kingdom” as HWA taught them. They do not believe they have salvation now but will only receive salvation after a life of works at the last judgment, if they manage to perform up to snuff. Lot’s of luck.
Scout
Anonymous Friday, January 24, 2025 at 2:54:37 PM PST,
You have given a well-articulated rationale for Sabbath observance which nicely summarizes the points Sabbatarians use to defend their practices and beliefs. However, your reasoning and use of Scripture is flawed.
First, as you acknowledged in your own remarks, there is no mistaking that the "the primary message of Hebrews 4 is to emphasize the believer's rest of grace." Jesus also said: "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28) He also said: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So, the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27-28). Unfortunately, the Jews had failed to realize the purpose and blessing of the rest which God had given them and intended for all of humanity. Hence, Christ clearly pointed out that the Sabbath pointed to him.
Second, you go on to quote from Isaiah and point out the eternal nature of God's Law, but you completely miss the full import of a passage which Herbert Armstrong loved to quote about the Law. Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17) Christ fulfilled Torah and the prophets - ALL of it/them (including the fourth commandment and the book of Isaiah)! In other words, it ALL pointed to HIM!
Third, Christ distilled the Law into Two Great Commandments. He said that loving God with our whole heart and soul and loving each other like we love ourselves comprehends ALL of God's Law. (Matthew 22:34-40) He also said: "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." (John 15:10) Jesus went on to say: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you." (John 15:12-14)
Hence, it is a matter of whether or not you will accept the rest which God has offered us in Christ. It is a matter of whether or not you will endeavor to obey Christ's commandment or will attempt to keep the ones in Torah which he has already fulfilled for us/on our behalf! By the way, obedience to the Two Great commandments is much more comprehensive and difficult than trying to obey some or all of the 600+ physical commandments of Torah. No one is setting aside God's commandments.
Think not I (Jesus) came to end the law but to live it and then end it because it pointed to Me????? No. Think not I come to abolish the law and then abolish it.
I dare say if you don't think the sabbath day is a delight then God may not be sanctifying you.
Anonymous 6:07 wrote, “Think not I (Jesus) came to end the law but to live it and then end it because it pointed to Me????? No. Think not I come to abolish the law and then abolish it.”
The judge in this case is the word of the Bible. Jesus himself said the Law and Prophets were until John the Baptist. That sounds like an ending to me. He said not one jot or tittle would drop from the law “until all is accomplished.” And this dropping happened fairly quickly. Sacrifices were soon gone. That sounds like an ending to me. He fulfilled the Law of Moses and then dispensed to us a new magnified law referred to in the NT as the “Law of Christ”. That sounds like an ending to me. The author of Hebrews wrote, ”There is, on the one hand, the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual (for the law made nothing perfect); there is, on the other hand, the introduction of a better hope through which we approach God.” That sounds like an ending to me. You need to figure out what ended.
My sabbatismos is Jesus Christ himself. Christ is sanctifying. Every day. The physical seventh day does not have the role it once had. Of course, keep it if you want. Observance can be instructional. It still retains cultural meaning if you are a Jew. It is not a requirement for salvation.
I am not going to go further. This is a topic that has been addressed extensively in Christianity. You can take the initiative to do the research or you can sail along believing HWA and G.G. Rupert knew it all. Your choice.
Scout
Scout 634
Quoting Jesus, you state, "not one jot or tittle would drop from the law until all be accomplished". That's fine but when exactly did this fulfillment happen?
The problem I see with your argument is, you have too many " ENDINGS", which are not all the same. I think what we ALL need to figure out is, WHAT ended and WHEN?
ALL was not accomplished "until John". Much was fulfilled after him. You also said Christ fulfilled the law of Moses THEN dispensed a new magnified law. Not so. The magnified law , which included the sabbath, came early in His ministry, long before the law of Moses as you put it was fulfilled.
You think " Christianity " has this resolved? They do not. In Christian circles and on this site, many "lines drawn in the sand" exist, that have been applied to Matthew 5:17-18, and are open to interpretation for they are not one and the same and happen at different times. Such "lines" are:
--the law and the prophets were until John
--the crucifixion, which comes AFTER John
--"It is finished" (John 19:30). which also comes after John yet many things were fulfilled after that.
--the old covenant/ new covenant
--the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15
--Peter verses Paul
When it comes to "endings", there is a vast differing of opinion, especially between Catholics and protestants.
Till all be accomplished? It is finished? When?
BP8 11:41
I agree with your observations. I do not have an answer for why there is not a single line drawn in the sand that marks the pivot to the NT. Barring a time machine to go back and ask some people who knew, I can only conjecture.
I think that there are a number of watershed events in various contexts and backed by various levels of authority – as you have listed. I believe that one particularly influential issue is the disagreements between early church leaders after Jesus ascended. One must ask why Paul was doing battle with the Circumcision Party and James was not. In Galatians 2:11-12, it describes a very interesting interaction that took place in Antioch. Paul writes this of Peter:
“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”
So, some politically heavy-duty guys came down from James in Jerusalem and Peter was afraid of them. Peter was so afraid that he quit associating with Gentiles. (This is one reason why I think the Circumcision Party was using circumcision to try to exclude Gentiles from the church.) And where was James? These were heavies from his congregation. Peter was afraid and this is the allegedly impulsive, forceful Peter that later became the leader of the Ekklesia. I believe if the Ekklesia had done what Jesus intended, the early flow of events in the Ekklesia would have been much different. There would have been a single line in the sand. This is complicated and I have already written a lot. Let me go on to another issue.
Jesus said the Law and the Prophets were until John (Matt 11:13). But when in John’s life was the milestone? We can only speculate. Jesus also said not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all is fulfilled. Then when he was crucified, we learn from the Epistles, way after the fact, that sacrifices became no longer relevant. But they were yet relevant in Matthew 5:18. So, “until all is fulfilled” happened in between Matthew 5:18 and the crucifixion. Then the sacrifices went into abeyance. A big jot or a big tittle fell from the Law and Prophets. Other modifications are cataloged in the Epistles. Very likely the crucifixion was the milestone for all being fulfilled.
When did the Ekklesia quite observing the sacrifices? When did the church quite observing the Law of Moses? Why were there people in James’ congregation still keeping the Law of Moses and trying to get others to do the same with James’ acquiescence? I don’t know the answers to these questions. We know the last date for the church following the Law of Moses was 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem devastated. We see this as a punishment on the Jews but it was also the destruction of where God had placed his name. It was not then possible to keep the Law of Moses as it is written in the Torah where it is dependent on the Tabernacle which was the forerunner of the Temple. And a Pharisee named Yohanan ben Zakkai at the Academy of Jamnia repackaged the Torah so it could be used in the Diaspora without a Temple. There is no record of the early Ekklesia repackaging the Torah for its use.
I like neat history with consistent milestones but that is not what happens among human beings. The early Ekklesia for a while had decentralized leadership. Things were not tidy. That is not my responsibility. It is what it is. Different streams of events concluded at different times.
Scout
OK. So, again, too many choices, how could we possibly know, so might as well default to Armstrongism, which is "won't kick in until Christ returns, so we're S.O.L and have to keep HWA's picked and chosen elements of the Old Covenant right up until then!"
Or in other words "Sorry folks! The New Covenant has been postponed because you brethren just aren't ready!" Which is the Armstrongite ending to all the fairy tales instead of "They all lived happily ever after!"
I prefer the firm ground as taught by classic Christianity for the past 2,000 + years
Scout @ 3:15:37 PM PST
You are quite correct. The Torah and its temple practices had to be reinvented with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jewish historian Dr Henry Abramson (on YouTube) has a great series on the development of modern Judaism after said events. And the development of the Talmud. Fascinating but sad also. As they say the rest is history. What does comfort me is that many, in spite of the power of Rabbinical Judaisms physiological hold over modern Israel, are coming to Christ. Without knowing or with any knowledge of the Armstrong movement.
Yea Scout, you see the offerings being diminished as well. As you know, during Christ ministry after a healing the leper: And He charged him to tell no one, “But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded.” (Luke 5:14)
Even Paul still acquiesce to the system in Jerusalem before being arrested.
Acts 21:26-27 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them. Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him,
But yea after 70 AD it was a done deal.
Scout 315
That was as good and honest of an answer one could give and I thank you for it.
I have reservations about the way some of these "lines" are interpreted and the ramifications of those interpretations but I'm not going into that now. I will address them in the future as they come up.
History tells us that Jerusalem Christians were being banished from the Temple, losing their jobs and friends, and pooling their resources to survive as they lived communally in the Catacombs. Peter was a target for frequent arrest, a factor which necessitated the diminishment of his role as a leader. These people would have lost the resources of the Temple, such as the sacrifices and rituals. In a way, the rise of the circumcision party could be understood as damage repair, or a PR technique to keep Jewish Christians in the good graces of the Priests and Sanhedrin. There were already several accepted individual sects amongst the Jews.
BB
Yea BB 9:12, reminds us of the Apostle John being kicked out of the physical church when reading 3 John 9. Your analysis of the temple banishment of losing their jobs reminds me of Paul's example when the riot at Ephesus happened in Acts 19:23-41. People's income was at stake and they didn't want to change for the sake of Christ.
I think circumcision is a very odd practice. Who originally thought it up? It existed well before Abraham. It was pagan at the start. Why not cut off an ear lobe instead? What makes removal of the foreskin the surgery of choice? is the foreskin really superfluous? Can it just be simply discarded or does it have a constructive purpose. Many have said that a man is better without it rather than with it but I am unconvinced.
And, of course, it is a classical case of the Genetic Fallacy in logic that Armstrongists us to reject and deride Christmas. In ancient Egypt, prior to Abraham, religious circumcision was practiced. Circumcision is depicted on Egyptian temple walls in 2300 BC or 5,000 years before Abraham.
God re-purposed something that was pagan for a good use, it appears. Evil was overcome by good. Maybe all the men in the anti-Christmas crowd should have a foreskin graft so they can eschew paganism. And then one day in the judgement they can upbraid God for perpetuating paganism.
Scout
I once heard it said in a small study group that God gave circumcision to Abraham as a perpetual reminder that man can not work out the plan of God. This came after Abraham's debacle and utter failure with Hagar, which came about through human planning and sexual intercourse. The same lesson is found in the giving of the old covenant (Galatians 4:22-30), which agreement was based purely on human performance (Ex.19:5-8).
The Bible is full of such examples (1 Cor.10:1-12).
BP8 4:44
Wikipedia states:
"Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BCE, lists first of all the Egyptians being the oldest people practicing circumcision then Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, and Syrians as circumcising cultures."
Who knows what it meant for these various ancient peoples but for Abraham it meant, according to Galatians, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised."
Certainly, the incident involving Hagar was a lesson in trust in God. I think there are many deeper meanings that we could find in the ritual. I just find the physical act itself to be unusual. The Israelites came out of Egypt and Egyptians practiced circumcision and had done so for Millennia. I puzzle at what Abraham must have thought when God directed him to get circumcised - like an Egyptian. Clearly, God wanted to make an impression on Abraham. I don't mean to in any way belittle circumcision. I just find it to be a curious custom that likely has more meaning behind it than we think.
Scout
BP8 4:44
I just submitted a comment and the system told me there was an error in posting it so I don’t know if it will ever appear or not.
Summarizing my previous comment, the NT meaning of circumcision involves faith. I think that the incident regarding Hagar was an less in trusting God. It would not be surprising if Abraham may have seen it in this way.
I find circumcision to be odd. I mean it no disrespect. But many nations surrounding Israel practiced it. And it had been practiced by Egyptians for millennia. I wonder what went through Abraham’s mind when God directed him to be circumcised – like an Egyptian? It must have been a shock.
Scout
What I thought was really odd was David taking circumcision to the most extreme level recorded in the Bible, and massively using it on the Philistines to create a dowry for Saul's daughter! This was as baudy a tale as anything written by Chaucer!
BB
Or when the sons of Jacob deceived Hamor and unto Shechem after the rape of Dinah. But perhaps it was justified.
The prominence of the circumcision theme in the OT and the NT makes it very difficult to ignore circumcision. It is present in a number of Biblical dramas. Remember Zipporah. I recognize it is not much spoken about from the Christian or Armstrongist pulpits but it is nevertheless very important. It is important in two ways:
1. It is a model for what happens to Old Testament Laws now that the New Testament is in force. It informs anyone who can read that the Law of Moses just does not sail along unchanged into the Christian Ekklesia. There is a NT dispositioning of the OT Laws that must be considered.
2. It demonstrates that the Chemical Theory of Paganism is false. Paganism is not like a chemical contaminate that God cannot overcome. Circumcision was a ritual in pagan nations that did not know God. Yet, God repurposed it to be a symbol of salvation. In the same way the Ekklesia has repurposed some historical observations, giving them a new meaning, for the celebration of Christmas, for instance.
These are significant issues for Christian praxis. Point 1 was an issue of controversy during the time of Paul. Point 2 is an issue of controversy now. The Armstrongist pulpit appears to maintain a belief in the Chemical Theory of Paganism. So, circumcision is an important test case that cuts both directions – it swings towards the Law of Moses and it swings towards pagan rituals.
Scout
For the time being, I will retract point two in my comment above posted at 9:58. While Google AI tells me that circumcision was a religious practice in Egypt going back 2300 BC, I cannot find any source documents. It might have just been a hygienic practice at that time. It was clearly a religious practice later but that was after the time of Abraham. I will revisit this issue after I can do some research.
Scout
Post a Comment