Acts 15

[TrustAndObey]

I'm debating with an ex-Adventist about Acts 15, and I haven't ever seen that chapter discussed here so I thought I'd bring it in.

It was brought up as far as keeping the Law of Moses is concered (specifically for Gentiles), and inevitably part of it concerns circumcision-which the council said was not necessary for Gentiles.

A short list was given to the Gentiles about not eating blood, or the food offered to pagan gods, fornication, etc.

The person is saying that this is all that Gentiles have to do as far as the Law of Moses is concerned.

But I have to ask...isn't circumcision still required?

Not the circumcision made with hands, but the inward circumcision of faith and obedience?

I'm just curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

This verses from Romans 2 were particularly interesting to me:

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

[Jon0388g]

I'm debating with an ex-Adventist about Acts 15, and I haven't ever seen that chapter discussed here so I thought I'd bring it in.

It was brought up as far as keeping the Law of Moses is concered (specifically for Gentiles), and inevitably part of it concerns circumcision-which the council said was not necessary for Gentiles.

A short list was given to the Gentiles about not eating blood, or the food offered to pagan gods, fornication, etc.

The person is saying that this is all that Gentiles have to do as far as the Law of Moses is concerned.

But I have to ask...isn't circumcision still required?

Not the circumcision made with hands, but the inward circumcision of faith and obedience?

I'm just curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

This verses from Romans 2 were particularly interesting to me:

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Good point sis. I never thought of it that way.


The Gentile Christians were called to walk after the Spirit, not the flesh: and as you pointed out the Law of Moses and circumcision were made for the carnal nature:

"And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." Hebrews 7:15-16

Jesus Christ came as the Priest not of the Law of Moses, the carnal commandment, but of the eternal Law of God, the Ten Commandments. This is what Hebrews refers to as the 'change in law'.


Ask the person you are debating with if Paul was referring to the Law of Moses when he wrote:

"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." Romans 7:14

And,

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7



Jon

[TrustAndObey]

Good point sis. I never thought of it that way.


The Gentile Christians were called to walk after the Spirit, not the flesh: and as you pointed out the Law of Moses and circumcision were made for the carnal nature:

"And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." Hebrews 7:15-16

Jesus Christ came as the Priest not of the Law of Moses, the carnal commandment, but of the eternal Law of God, the Ten Commandments. This is what Hebrews refers to as the 'change in law'.


Ask the person you are debating with if Paul was referring to the Law of Moses when he wrote:

"For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." Romans 7:14

And,

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Romans 8:7



Jon

Romans 7 has come up a couple of times. :)

It's so hard to have an in-depth discussion right now because I have so many other things going on (finals are next week).

I do really love diving into the Word even if it's with someone that believes the exact opposite of what I do on a lot of things.

It's still fellowship, even if we aren't fellows on the same ship.

^_^

You should jump in Jon. It's a thread in Denomination-specific theology asking the Adventist "take" on the torah written on the heart.

[TrustAndObey]

Here's what stands out for me in Acts 15...

15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner (custom) of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Circumcision was around long before Moses (Gen 17...a covenant between God and Abraham), and the only custom I can find relating to it from Moses is that the "stranger" had to be circumcised in order to keep the Passover (Exodus 12:48).

A friend of mine was saying that getting circumcised on the eighth day is also the law of Moses, but that's back in the covenant with Abraham as well (Gen 17:12).

Jesus says this though: John 7:23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

Was there another custom about circumcision on the Sabbath in the Law of Moses (if there is, I can't find it).

And why does it say MAN if a newborn was supposed to get circumcised at eight days?

Why would Jesus call it the Law of Moses if Moses wasn't even born when Abraham was told the males in the following generations already had to be circumcised at 8 days old?

Circumcision (although admittedly not my forte as a female) is still required, is it not? It just has to be on the heart and not on the flesh...circumcision not made with hands.

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

These verses are interesting too: Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

I don't understand what exactly is being said. It appears that keeping the law (which set?) is counted for circumcision even if it's inward, so would that count for the Gentile or not?

[OntheDL]

Romans 2 Vs 25: circumcision of the fore skin is useless if they break the law. Vs 26: if physically uncircumcised (non-jews) keep the law, they are counted as circumcised.

What did Paul say about Christians getting circumcision?

Galatians 3
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Circumcision of the heart or Baptism by the spirit is the circumcision that matters. That's why God refers as after those days, I will write my laws on their hearts.

[capnator]

If that was all... then why have the rest of the bible... all we need to know would be in Acts 15

[k4c]

1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

[catmommy]

I may be way off, but the circumcision after the law of Moses would mean they would be brought into the current Jewish theology of the day, one that did not accept Jesus as their savior. So in a round about way, they were trying to make the new converts Jewish in the traditon of men and not in the new understanding that Jesus taught. Paul was saying that gentiles did not need to become apart of the dominant religion before being accepted in the christian sect of judism, they could moved directly into chiristianity.

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The question that was dealt with with at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was whether pagan converts who were not circumcised as infants, would have do be circumcised to join the church. Nothing less, nothing more. Whether children born to Christian parents should be circumcised is a different question.