A question for "non-Professiona" Christians

[YusufNoor]

this is a question for lay Christians inspired by Professor Phillip Carey in his course The History of Christian Theology distributed by the Teaching Company. the questions arises from lecture #3, Pauline Eschatology.

here's the question:

if a Jew becomes a Christian today, must he abandon his Jewish faith in order to become a Christian? would he have to stop being a Jew? if so, why? please base your answer on the New Testament and give proofs for your answer.

Ma salaama

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

no takers on this one?

Hiroshi, care to give it a go?

:wa:

[Hugo]

this is a question for lay Christians inspired by Professor Phillip Carey in his course The History of Christian Theology distributed by the Teaching Company. the questions arises from lecture #3, Pauline Eschatology.here's the question:

if a Jew becomes a Christian today, must he abandon his Jewish faith in order to become a Christian? would he have to stop being a Jew? if so, why? please base your answer on the New Testament and give proofs for your answer.Ma salaama

No because as a Christian he would accept that the message has been unchanged since Abraham, you may not have noticed that Jesus was a Jew, Paul was a Jew but I suggest you have a look at say the first 5 chapters of the book of Romans where this is discussed.

[PouringRain]

I agree with Hugo. Although, I will say that the Jewish-Christian would hold some beliefs that are very different than are found in mainstream Christianity. This does not mean that he would be wrong nor any less of a Christian. He would certainly have a fuller understanding. (This is assuming he was learned in Judaism in the first place, since you asked if he would have to abandon his faith. If he were a secular Jew and unlearned in his faith, then his beliefs may not differ from those of mainstream Christianity.) Support with scripture.... the words and ministry of Jesus.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[YusufNoor]

and i thought i was being ignored...

so, as a Jewish Christian then, he would celebrate the Friday sunset to Saturday sunset Sabbath? yes or no?

he would be requires, as a Jew, to observed the Jewish Holy Days and NOT the "Christian" holidays, yes or no?

He would also be required to eat kosher food, yes?

and of course, Jewish baby boys would circumsized "the 8th day," yes?

all these would be required of Jewish Christians, yes?

and YES, i NOTICED Isa ibn Marriam was a Jew, as was Peter and the rest of the Apostles. while it is believed Paul was Jewish, i do NOT believe that he was a Pharisee.

:wa:

[PouringRain]

and i thought i was being ignored...

Not at all. :) This section has been closed for all of Ramadan. Since you posted this thread not long before that, I am guessing that there were others, such as myself, who did not even notice it.

so, as a Jewish Christian then, he would celebrate the Friday sunset to Saturday sunset Sabbath? yes or no?

If he chose to do this, it would be perfectly acceptable as a Christian. Not all Christians observe the sabbath on Sunday. There are groups that keep the sabbath on Saturday, and there are also those who do keep a Friday sunset to Saturday sunset sabbath. Some Christians are quite insistent on what specific day the sabbath is to be observed, but others are more flexible and believe that the important thing is in set aside a day to keep the sabbath holy.

he would be requires, as a Jew, to observed the Jewish Holy Days and NOT the "Christian" holidays, yes or no?

If he chose to observe the Jewish holy days and not Christian holidays, then that would be perfectly acceptable as well. There are Christians who do not celebrate certain holidays because of the pagan influences (such as Christmas and Easter). There are also christians who celebrate Jewish holy days as well. For example, Shavuot was called Pentecost by hellenistic Jews and Christians often keep remembrance of Pentecost from the event in Acts.

He would also be required to eat kosher food, yes?

If he chose to keep Kosher, yes he could. There are Christians and Christian groups that do keep kosher.

and of course, Jewish baby boys would circumsized "the 8th day," yes?

If he were a Jew who converted to Christianity then he most likely would already have been circumcised... but if he chose to keep this with his sons, then yes, he certainly could.

all these would be required of Jewish Christians, yes?

I wouldn't say "required". If a Jew converted to Christianity he would not be required to keep those things. Your original question asked if a Jew must abandon his faith, and the answer is no. He could choose to continue to keep all those things as a Christian, but he would not be required to keep those things. In becoming a Christian he would not have to give up his Jewish observances, but he also would not be required to keep them.

It seems as though what you are really wanting to ask about is Christianity and keeping the Jewish law..... but perhaps I am wrong. :)

[Seeker1066]

Hey Pouring this is a good response. Such Jewish people in America often call themselves Messianic Jews.

From Wikipedia

"Messianic Judaism is a religious movement that adds to Evangelical Christian theology some elements of Jewish terminology and ritual.[1][2][3][4] In 2003, there were at least 150 Messianic houses of worship in the United States and over 400 worldwide, often members of larger Messianic organizations or alliances.[5] By 2008, the movement was reported to have around a quarter million members in the United States,[6] and between 6,000 and 15,000 in Israel.[7] Today, there are over 350 Messianic congregations in the US alone.[8][not in citation given][original research?]

Messianic Judaism states that Jesus is part of the Trinity,[9][10] and salvation is only achieved only through acceptance of Jesus as one's savior.[11] Any Jewish laws or customs that are followed are cultural and do not contribute to attaining salvation.[1] Messianic Judaism's belief in the role and divinity of Jesus is seen by Christian denominations[12] and Jewish religious movements[13] as being the defining distinction between Christianity and Judaism.[14][15][16][17][18]

Many members of the movement are ethnically Jewish, and some of them argue that Messianic Judaism is a sect of Judaism.[19] Jewish organizations and religious movements reject this, stating that Messianic Judaism is a Christian sect.[13] The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the Law of Return should treat Jews who convert to Messianic Judaism the same way it treats Jews who convert to Christianity.[20] Mainstream Christian groups generally accept Messianic Judaism as a form of Christianity.[12]

[PouringRain]

Hey Pouring this is a good response. Such Jewish people in America often call themselves Messianic Jews.

Yes, Messianic Jews would be an example of the above. Netzarim are another Christian group that could fall in this category, although I am not sure how many of them in modern days are Jewish by ancestry, If any at all. There are also (non-Judaic) Christian groups that keep elements of what Yusuf Noor asked about above, but do not keep completely, such as Seventh Day Adventist who keep kosher, keep a Saturday Sabbath, etc.

[Hiroshi]

:sl:

no takers on this one?

Hiroshi, care to give it a go?

:wa:

Only just noticed this.

I would say that the man would have to leave his Jewish faith. There are a number of NT passages, mostly writings of Paul, that say that any Jews who become Christians are no longer under the Law of Moses. So the festivals, Sabbath keeping, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. should no longer be observed (Acts 15:1; Acts 15:28-29; Galatians 5:2; Colossians 2:14; Colossians 2:16-17).

Most importantly the man would have to accept that Jesus was the Messiah and had died for his sins. The orthodox Jewish faith today surely rejects this teaching.

[PouringRain]

Only just noticed this.

I would say that the man would have to leave his Jewish faith. There are a number of NT passages, mostly writings of Paul, that say that any Jews who become Christians are no longer under the Law of Moses. So the festivals, Sabbath keeping, circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc. should no longer be observed (Acts 15:1; Acts 15:28-29; Galatians 5:2; Colossians 2:14; Colossians 2:16-17).

Most importantly the man would have to accept that Jesus was the Messiah and had died for his sins. The orthodox Jewish faith today surely rejects this teaching.

You write that because Paul taught that man was not under the law, then it should no longer be observed. Not being under the law is not the saying that one must give up the law. The Jew who becomes a Christian may not be under the law, but this does not mean that he must stop observing the law. You may not be required to keep Kosher, but this does not mean that you should not keep Kosher, for example. In Paul's writing he speaks of guarding against legalism, against enforcing the laws onto gentile believers, against judging others by the law, etc. "Freedom" from the yoke of the law is not license to do as one wills.

I wanted to comment on your final statement also, (and possibly more on the first), but I have to leave suddenly.

[Hiroshi]

You write that because Paul taught that man was not under the law, then it should no longer be observed. Not being under the law is not the saying that one must give up the law. The Jew who becomes a Christian may not be under the law, but this does not mean that he must stop observing the law. You may not be required to keep Kosher, but this does not mean that you should not keep Kosher, for example. In Paul's writing he speaks of guarding against legalism, against enforcing the laws onto gentile believers, against judging others by the law, etc. "Freedom" from the yoke of the law is not license to do as one wills.

I wanted to comment on your final statement also, (and possibly more on the first), but I have to leave suddenly.

Hi PouringRain.

Well, just for example, should a Christian become circumcised as required by the Mosaic Law? Surely not, right? Why should it still be necessary then for Jews to practice circumcision? Are they acting in a more righteous manner than Christians if they do so?

[PouringRain]

Hi PouringRain.

Well, just for example, should a Christian become circumcised as required by the Mosaic Law? Surely not, right? Why should it still be necessary then for Jews to practice circumcision? Are they acting in a more righteous manner than Christians if they do so?

If a Christian wants to be circumcised according to Mosaic law, it is not forbidden. It is not that it is necessary for the Jew, but it is also not forbidden. The Jew is not required to give up his Judaic faith and practices just because he becomes a Christian. His Christian faith becomes an extension of his Judaic one-- A completion. Jesus did not come to create a new religion. He came to be a fulfilling of the original one. Back to the practices, such as circumcision, if one chooses to follow the law it does not make him more righteous than one who chooses not to within the Christian faith. That is what Paul was talking about-- not to judge others according to how they keep or do not keep the law. Their faith is not built upon adherence to the law, and they are saved by their faith. If a Christian chooses to honor God through the Mitzvah, they are not forbidden to do so.

I will write more later as time permits me. Once again I must run out the door. :)

[Hiroshi]

If a Christian wants to be circumcised according to Mosaic law, it is not forbidden. It is not that it is necessary for the Jew, but it is also not forbidden. The Jew is not required to give up his Judaic faith and practices just because he becomes a Christian. His Christian faith becomes an extension of his Judaic one-- A completion. Jesus did not come to create a new religion. He came to be a fulfilling of the original one. Back to the practices, such as circumcision, if one chooses to follow the law it does not make him more righteous than one who chooses not to within the Christian faith. That is what Paul was talking about-- not to judge others according to how they keep or do not keep the law. Their faith is not built upon adherence to the law, and they are saved by their faith. If a Christian chooses to honor God through the Mitzvah, they are not forbidden to do so.

I will write more later as time permits me. Once again I must run out the door. :)

There is a little more to it than that. Notice what Paul writes in Galatians 5:2 "... if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."

The Law actually promised everlasting life to anyone who could keep it. Galatians 3:12 (quoting Leviticus 18:5) says: "The man who does these things will live by them." But it was a serious matter. A man who became circumcised on account of the Law was then required to fulfill all it's requirements. Galatians 5:3 says: "I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."

Failure to obey every requirement of the Law meant that the person would not get life but instead a curse. Galatians 3:10 (quoting Deuteronomy 27:26) says: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

And the fact was that no Jew who had ever lived (except Jesus) was able to keep the Law perfectly due to inherited sin and imperfection (Romans 5:12). Hence the Law failed to bestow life and righteousness but rather brought the Jews under a curse. Jesus then had to remove this curse for them by the manner of his death (Galatians 3:13).

So Christians have to acknowledge that the Mosaic Law is not the way to everlasting life. Rather they have to exercise faith in Jesus' sacrifice to get their sins blotted out. This of course does not mean that they can do as they like. Paul also showed that the purpose of God's grace, or undeserved kindness, was not to make an allowance for sin but rather for the purpose of sanctification, so that Christians should do their utmost to live up to God's righteous standards in all they do, as befits a holy people.

[PouringRain]

There is a little more to it than that. Notice what Paul writes in Galatians 5:2 "... if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."

The Law actually promised everlasting life to anyone who could keep it. Galatians 3:12 (quoting Leviticus 18:5) says: "The man who does these things will live by them." But it was a serious matter. A man who became circumcised on account of the Law was then required to fulfill all it's requirements. Galatians 5:3 says: "I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."

Failure to obey every requirement of the Law meant that the person would not get life but instead a curse. Galatians 3:10 (quoting Deuteronomy 27:26) says: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."

And the fact was that no Jew who had ever lived (except Jesus) was able to keep the Law perfectly due to inherited sin and imperfection (Romans 5:12). Hence the Law failed to bestow life and righteousness but rather brought the Jews under a curse. Jesus then had to remove this curse for them by the manner of his death (Galatians 3:13).

So Christians have to acknowledge that the Mosaic Law is not the way to everlasting life. Rather they have to exercise faith in Jesus' sacrifice to get their sins blotted out. This of course does not mean that they can do as they like. Paul also showed that the purpose of God's grace, or undeserved kindness, was not to make an allowance for sin but rather for the purpose of sanctification, so that Christians should do their utmost to live up to God's righteous standards in all they do, as befits a holy people.

I have composed a reply for you, but it may be too long for a single post. ;D (I will break it up into two posts.)

You must remember that the book of Galatians was written around 48-55 AD, and the book of Acts was written around 60-62 AD (by Luke). This is important, because there is a line of thinking that when Paul wrote the letter to the church at Galatia, it was prior to the meeting at Jerusalem that we see written in Acts 15. (Although some believe it could have been after and he was giving them the verdict.) The reason for the meeting, and also for Paul’s words in Galatians, was what I referred to earlier—there was a disagreement over whether or not Gentile Christians must adhere to the law.

Backing up to my comment that Jesus did not come to create a new religion, but to fulfill what was in the original one, it is also important to note that he came first to the Jew and he taught as a Jew. In Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus says, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. “ (Some Christians believe this ended at the cross, others disagree, and do not believe it ends until the final fulfillment in the end times. The verses say “until ALL is fulfilled” and “till Heaven and Earth pass away.” These lines would indicate that he was speaking of the end times.)

In Matthew 22:34-40 we are told of an event where Jesus was tested by the Jewish leadership: “But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’” Indeed, all the law and the prophets hang on those two: love for God and love for man. Jesus’ words were also reminiscent of those spoke by Hillel the elder (who lived during the time of Herod, and possibly influenced some of the teachings of Jesus)… Tradition gives us a story of Hillel the elder where a man came to him and said he would convert if Hillel could teach the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel said to him, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. The rest is just commentary, now go and study.” We also read Jesus saying this in Matthew7:12 “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Jesus’ words were not unique in Jewish teaching. When he gave two commandments in Matthew 22, the emphasis was to first put God first above all things. Already, the teaching existed that all the law hangs within the idea of doing to others what you want them to do, but Jesus was giving the first as an emphasis that first man must love God, then his neighbor. Jesus came first for the Jew and he taught as a Jew.

[PouringRain]

(Cont.)


Then to the Gentile. At the time of the early church there was disputes about what was required of the gentiles. If gentile converted to Judaism then the Gentile was required to be circumcised and keep the law. Christianity, at the time, was not a “new” religion. Jewish Christians were still Jews. What to do with the Gentile converts? Some insisted that they must be circumcised and keep the law, just as the Jew did. Paul was putting that idea to rest, both in Galatians and at the meeting in Acts (alongside the other apostles). There are two reasons for this. The first reason stems from the two commandments—to love God and love thy neighbor. A part of Jesus’ teaching was freedom from the yoke of the law. Man was not bound to the law, but freed within it. This does not mean that the law was no longer in effect. It meant that the bondage to the law was broken. One must “keep” the law out of love for God and love for man—because that is the law. Keeping the law, for the Jew, had become a near impossible task. Man’s interpretation of the law was even so exacting at times, that in keeping one commandment man could become guilty of breaking another. The hypocrisy, legalism, and superiority/ judging of others was rampant—and Jesus condemned this. Keeping the law was not a source of love, but had become a burden. (Even today there are Jews who speak of the law in this manner, and many liberal sects no longer even require keeping with the law.) The problem was not with the law itself, but was with man’s heart. This is why Peter says in Acts 15:10, “Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

The second reason why Paul and the disciples probably spoke out against the idea of Gentiles keeping the Jewish laws, stems from the Jewish idea of the Noahide, or righteous gentile. In Judaism, it is not Jews alone who will have a place in the world to come, but also righteous gentiles will share in that. Non-Jews were only required to follow the Noahide laws—those laws handed down from Noah. Non-Jews were outside of the covenant relationship, and were therefore not bound to the laws. When the Gentiles became Christians (which at the time was not a distinct religion separate from Judaism), the Jews felt that these new converts must also be circumcised and keep the law—just as a new convert to Judaism would have to. Paul and the disciples put this to rest by saying no. Christ had freed both the Jew and the gentile from the yoke of the law, taking on that yoke would then be taking on something that was contrary to the teaching of Jesus. This is not the same as saying that choosing to adhere to the law out of one’s love for God and man is going against Christ’s teaching—on the contrary, it was not against Christ’s teaching, but it was also not required.

In Acts 15 we see three “laws” given to the gentiles to keep. This was not the only place where the gentiles or the Christian church was given laws to abide by. The laws came to be looked at as moral guidelines for behavior. When we read Paul’s words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:5-11 (this letter written in approx. 62-67 AD, following Acts) Paul writes, “Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” From this passage, again we see that the purpose of the law is love, and the problems with the law come from man. “The law is good if one uses it lawfully.” The law, in itself, is not a bad thing. It is how man wrongfully abuses the law which is bad. Paul goes on to say that the law is not created for the righteous, but for the lawless. The reason is because those who are righteous are already following the law. If someone is not a murderer, then there is no need to tell him not to murder. If someone is always honest, then there is no need to tell him not to lie. If someone has the love for God and man in his heart, and acts from a pure heart, then there is no need to tell that man not to do what he is not doing, or to do what he already is. If man gives his goods to the poor, continually giving charity out of his love for others and desire to help them, then there is no need to command that man to give charity. For the righteous, the law becomes unnecessary. The law is for the the lawless, insubordinate, ungodly, sinner, etc. The list goes on. They are the ones who need the law to govern their behavior, as they have no love for God or others. Unfortunately, many individuals who claim to love God fit with these categories, but God knows their heart. Not everyone who cries Lord, Lord will be saved (Matthew).

It should be noted that Timothy was circumcised. In Acts 16, following the ruling in Acts 15 that there is no need for them to be circumcised, Paul thinks it best for Timothy to be circumcised in order for him to best witness to the Jews. Acts 16:1-3 “He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” This is a good example of where the circumcision was not required, but it is allowable (and even sometimes best for man’s witness). It also shows that Paul’s words to the Galatians were to explain a larger phenomenon, rather than to criticize circumcision.

In conclusion, back to the original poster’s question, a Jew who converts to Christianity is allowed to continue to keep his Judaic practices (and the law) if he chooses, but it is not required of him. If he chooses to follow the Mitzvah out of his love for God and man, then he does s with right intention. The condition of man’s heart is what is important. The law does not save man. (We agree on that.) To answer your earlier question again, one who keeps the law is not more righteous than one who does not. Mainly, because keeping the law is not what makes one righteous and one who is righteous does not need the law, because one who is righteous is already doing those things out of love for God and man. It is not the act that is important, but the condition of man’s heart. One who acts, but has a heart (intention) that is not right, is doing it for naught.

I hope I answered your questions in a way that is clear. I have tried to be as concise as possible. The verses used are in no way comprehensive, nor is this message. I have attempted to be as brief as possible.

[Grace Seeker]

this is a question for lay Christians

Now, I'm trying to figure out if my participation would be welcome or not? I am a member of the clergy, and while the term "laos" which is the origin of the term "laity" means "the people", implying all the people. The common understanding is to divide Christians into two categories the clergy and the laity. So, I would not be the lay Christians you say the question is for in your post. But your title says a question for "non-Professiona[l]" Christians. And I assure you that while my vocation may be that of pastor of a Christian congregation, I am not a Christian by profession. I was a Christian long before I was and will be one after I am a pastor.

Of course, you don't need my input either, the people are doing a great job answering.

[PouringRain]

Now, I'm trying to figure out if my participation would be welcome or not? I am a member of the clergy, and while the term "laos" which is the origin of the term "laity" means "the people", implying all the people. The common understanding is to divide Christians into two categories the clergy and the laity. So, I would not be the lay Christians you say the question is for in your post. But your title says a question for "non-Professiona[l]" Christians. And I assure you that while my vocation may be that of pastor of a Christian congregation, I am not a Christian by profession. I was a Christian long before I was and will be one after I am a pastor.

Of course, you don't need my input either, the people are doing a great job answering.

Grace Seeker, I always enjoy reading your posts. :thumbs_up I don't know if Yusuf would consider you in with the "non-professional" "lay" Christians, but I think your input would certainly contribute to the thread and be appreciated.


(If you pick on my posts, please tread gently! :p )

[Hiroshi]

In conclusion, back to the original poster’s question, a Jew who converts to Christianity is allowed to continue to keep his Judaic practices (and the law) if he chooses, but it is not required of him. If he chooses to follow the Mitzvah out of his love for God and man, then he does s with right intention. The condition of man’s heart is what is important. The law does not save man. (We agree on that.) To answer your earlier question again, one who keeps the law is not more righteous than one who does not. Mainly, because keeping the law is not what makes one righteous and one who is righteous does not need the law, because one who is righteous is already doing those things out of love for God and man. It is not the act that is important, but the condition of man’s heart. One who acts, but has a heart (intention) that is not right, is doing it for naught.

I hope I answered your questions in a way that is clear. I have tried to be as concise as possible. The verses used are in no way comprehensive, nor is this message. I have attempted to be as brief as possible.

Let me say firstly that this is a most interesting subject to discuss with you and I am impressed with your knowledge and research. Also I think that you would like to say a lot more but want to be as short and to the point as possible.

Let me just again cite Galatians 3:10 where it says: "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse". Now do you think that it is a light matter for a person to bring himself under a curse from Almighty God?

[YusufNoor]

Now, I'm trying to figure out if my participation would be welcome or not? I am a member of the clergy, and while the term "laos" which is the origin of the term "laity" means "the people", implying all the people. The common understanding is to divide Christians into two categories the clergy and the laity. So, I would not be the lay Christians you say the question is for in your post. But your title says a question for "non-Professiona[l]" Christians. And I assure you that while my vocation may be that of pastor of a Christian congregation, I am not a Christian by profession. I was a Christian long before I was and will be one after I am a pastor.

Of course, you don't need my input either, the people are doing a great job answering.

:sl:

methinks the job title Pastor disqualifies you, besides Hiroshi and Rain are doing a fine job.

It should be noted that Timothy was circumcised. In Acts 16, following the ruling in Acts 15 that there is no need for them to be circumcised, Paul thinks it best for Timothy to be circumcised in order for him to best witness to the Jews. Acts 16:1-3 “He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.” This is a good example of where the circumcision was not required, but it is allowable (and even sometimes best for man’s witness). It also shows that Paul’s words to the Galatians were to explain a larger phenomenon, rather than to criticize circumcision.

hmmm, not sure what to make of this. it appears that it wasn't Timothy's decision, but Paul's! do we know if his "Greek" father was a Christian or not?

Let me just again cite Galatians 3:10 where it says: "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse". Now do you think that it is a light matter for a person to bring himself under a curse from Almighty God?

Hiroshi, is the curse for "observing" the Law or for "relying on it for salvation?"

:wa:

[Hiroshi]

:sl:
hmmm, not sure what to make of this. it appears that it wasn't Timothy's decision, but Paul's! do we know if his "Greek" father was a Christian or not?

In 2 Timothy 1:5 Paul commends Timothy's mother and grandmother for passing on to Timothy their Christian faith. But he makes no mention of Timothy's Greek father. So it looks like his father wasn't a Christian.

The circumcision was apparently performed only in order to allow Timothy freeness of speech with the Jews in that region who otherwise would not have listened to him.

:sl:
Hiroshi, is the curse for "observing" the Law or for "relying on it for salvation?"

:wa:

It seems a bit hypocritical to try to perform all of the Law while at the same time not believing that it will benefit or bring salvation. Paul stressed that a person could not just perform part of the Law but would need to observe all of it. And included in the "all of it" was the curse.

[Hiroshi]

Now, I'm trying to figure out if my participation would be welcome or not?

Your participation would be most welcome.

Btw, I'm going away for the weekend in a few minutes, off into the countryside where nobody has computers or internet access. So I won't be able to send any more posts until Monday.

Talk some more later. Bye for now.

[PouringRain]

Hiroshi, sorry I have not yet replied to your question posed at me. I have had a reply (unwritten out) since last Friday morning, but I have been lacking in time to sit and write it. Then, these past two nights I have been ill. I will reply as soon as I am able, but I didn't want you to think I ran off. LOL

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, sorry I have not yet replied to your question posed at me. I have had a reply (unwritten out) since last Friday morning, but I have been lacking in time to sit and write it. Then, these past two nights I have been ill. I will reply as soon as I am able, but I didn't want you to think I ran off. LOL

No worries Rain, and no need to rush things. Just reply whenever you are able to. Sorry that you have been ill.

[PouringRain]

Let me say firstly that this is a most interesting subject to discuss with you and I am impressed with your knowledge and research. Also I think that you would like to say a lot more but want to be as short and to the point as possible.

Let me just again cite Galatians 3:10 where it says: "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse". Now do you think that it is a light matter for a person to bring himself under a curse from Almighty God?

Thank you for the kind words.

Galatians 3:10 does say that in isolation, and that is why it is important to put it in context of the surrounding verses and also to look at the origin of what the verse was based upon. Historical context is also of interest when we consider what I mentioned previously, that Galatians was written prior to Acts and in Acts we see Paul making timothy to be circumcised. You ask if it is something light for a person to bring himself under a curse-- I ask, do you think Paul would then force Timothy to be cursed? Not at all, because it is not the observance of the law that brings the curse it is reliance upon the law that brings the curse. This is where we must look at context (and also at the verse itself). Galatians 3:10 says that "all those who rely..." Rely is a keyword in that verse, especially in context of the rest of Galatians 3. The problem was not in following the law, but in relying on the law for salvation. The essence of Galatians 3 is that salvation is through faith, not through observance of the law, and if man relies on the law then he is also bound by those curses of the law, but the law is not against God and is beneficial. That could sum up the entire essence of Galatians 3.

The law itself is not the problem, it is reliance on the law for salvation that Paul is saying is the problem. So, what are these curses? We must then back up to where Galatians 3:10 (second half of verse) comes from to see the curses. Galatians 3:10b "for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them'." The origin: Deuteronomy 27:26 "‘Cursed is the one who does not confirm (all) the words of this law by observing them'," The version I have used here uses the word "all" in Deuteronomy, but it must be noted that in the original Hebrew the word all was not in there. It could be argued that it was implied. If you look at the previous verses in Deuteronomy then you can see where the curses were attached to:

Deut 27:15-26 Cursed is the one who makes a carved or molded image, an abomination to the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret. And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who moves his neighbor’s landmark. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Cursed is the one who makes the blind to wander off the road. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Cursed is the one who perverts the justice due the stranger, the fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s bed. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who lies with any kind of animal. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who lies with his mother-in-law. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who attacks his neighbor secretly. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’”

Then Deuteronomy 28 gives us the blessings and the curses. (I won't list them here.) In Galatians, Paul was saying that if you rely on the law for your salvation, then you are also subject to the curses of the law for breaking it. But again, it does not mean that observing the law is bad nor wrong. One can observe the law without relying on the law for salvation. The curse of the law has been removed, but it does not mean that man now has free license to disobey the law.

To answer your question, no, it is not a light matter to bring a curse upon oneself from God. But following the law does not bring the curse. I think it is clear in Paul's own actions when he had Timothy circumcised in accordance with the law, that following it is not what brings the curse. It is the reliance on the law for salvation, rather than faith, that then subjects man to the law and all the curses that go along with breaking it. The law is not bad, and choosing to observe the law out of love for God will not bring disfavor with God.

[Hiroshi]

Thank you for the kind words.

Galatians 3:10 does say that in isolation, and that is why it is important to put it in context of the surrounding verses and also to look at the origin of what the verse was based upon. Historical context is also of interest when we consider what I mentioned previously, that Galatians was written prior to Acts and in Acts we see Paul making timothy to be circumcised. You ask if it is something light for a person to bring himself under a curse-- I ask, do you think Paul would then force Timothy to be cursed? Not at all, because it is not the observance of the law that brings the curse it is reliance upon the law that brings the curse. This is where we must look at context (and also at the verse itself). Galatians 3:10 says that "all those who rely..." Rely is a keyword in that verse, especially in context of the rest of Galatians 3. The problem was not in following the law, but in relying on the law for salvation. The essence of Galatians 3 is that salvation is through faith, not through observance of the law, and if man relies on the law then he is also bound by those curses of the law, but the law is not against God and is beneficial. That could sum up the entire essence of Galatians 3.

The law itself is not the problem, it is reliance on the law for salvation that Paul is saying is the problem. So, what are these curses? We must then back up to where Galatians 3:10 (second half of verse) comes from to see the curses. Galatians 3:10b "for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them'." The origin: Deuteronomy 27:26 "‘Cursed is the one who does not confirm (all) the words of this law by observing them'," The version I have used here uses the word "all" in Deuteronomy, but it must be noted that in the original Hebrew the word all was not in there. It could be argued that it was implied. If you look at the previous verses in Deuteronomy then you can see where the curses were attached to:

Deut 27:15-26 Cursed is the one who makes a carved or molded image, an abomination to the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret. And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who moves his neighbor’s landmark. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Cursed is the one who makes the blind to wander off the road. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
Cursed is the one who perverts the justice due the stranger, the fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s bed. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who lies with any kind of animal. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who lies with his mother-in-law. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who attacks his neighbor secretly. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who takes a bribe to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’”

Then Deuteronomy 28 gives us the blessings and the curses. (I won't list them here.) In Galatians, Paul was saying that if you rely on the law for your salvation, then you are also subject to the curses of the law for breaking it. But again, it does not mean that observing the law is bad nor wrong. One can observe the law without relying on the law for salvation. The curse of the law has been removed, but it does not mean that man now has free license to disobey the law.

To answer your question, no, it is not a light matter to bring a curse upon oneself from God. But following the law does not bring the curse. I think it is clear in Paul's own actions when he had Timothy circumcised in accordance with the law, that following it is not what brings the curse. It is the reliance on the law for salvation, rather than faith, that then subjects man to the law and all the curses that go along with breaking it. The law is not bad, and choosing to observe the law out of love for God will not bring disfavor with God.

Hope you are feeling better.

Paul's action in circumcising Timothy was not with a view to return to the Mosaic Law. It was done to make it possible for Timothy to preach to the Jews with freeness of speach.

Galatians 4:9-11 says this also: "how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."

Paul calls the things of the Mosaic Law "weak and miserable". And they are when compared to the far better arrangement with Jesus' ransom sacrifice. If a Christian devoted himself to carrying out all of the requirements of the Mosaic Law, even if in his heart he viewed them as meaningless, others would take note of his actions and would imagine that this was something needed for salvation. I know many who believe that Christians are still under the Ten Commandments and many churches have mistakenly taught that work is forbidden on Sunday.

But Paul didn't view it as optional whether or not one would continue to follow the Law. He saw it as imperative that Christians should not observe it. Jesus' perfect sacrifice fulfilled every requirement of the Mosaic Law, effectively bringing it to an end (like a debt that had been fully paid). After a loan has been completely settled you don't still continue to pay installments do you? In the same way Christians should see themselves as being in no way at all under the Mosaic Law.

[PouringRain]

Paul's action in circumcising Timothy was not with a view to return to the Mosaic Law. It was done to make it possible for Timothy to preach to the Jews with freeness of speach.

I agree, but it also shows that observing a law does not enslave one into bondage of the law. There is no problem with observing the law.

Galatians 4:9-11 says this also: "how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."

Paul calls the things of the Mosaic Law "weak and miserable". And they are when compared to the far better arrangement with Jesus' ransom sacrifice. If a Christian devoted himself to carrying out all of the requirements of the Mosaic Law, even if in his heart he viewed them as meaningless, others would take note of his actions and would imagine that this was something needed for salvation. I know many who believe that Christians are still under the Ten Commandments and many churches have mistakenly taught that work is forbidden on Sunday.

Back up to verse 8 and you will see that passage refers to those who had converted from paganism, and is not referring to the mosaic law. Galatians 4:8 "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods....." That passage would be better used to argue against the observance of holidays that are founded in paganism. :)

I wrote quite a bit on the law already, so I won't go back over it again.

But Paul didn't view it as optional whether or not one would continue to follow the Law. He saw it as imperative that Christians should not observe it. Jesus' perfect sacrifice fulfilled every requirement of the Mosaic Law, effectively bringing it to an end (like a debt that had been fully paid). After a loan has been completely settled you don't still continue to pay installments do you? In the same way Christians should see themselves as being in no way at all under the Mosaic Law.

Paul never said it is imperative that Christians not follow the law. Those are your words, not his. All through his writing it can be seen that the problems are as I mentioned before: 1) bondage to the law/ reliance on the law, and 2) judging others by the law.

[Hiroshi]

Pouring Rain,

Sorry that I haven't replied to you yet. I have been really, really busy and quite unwell (like you). I haven't forgotten you and I will get back to you soon.

[PouringRain]

Pouring Rain,

Sorry that I haven't replied to you yet. I have been really, really busy and quite unwell (like you). I haven't forgotten you and I will get back to you soon.

That's fine. Take your time. I hope you feel well soon.

I will say that the majority of Christians, imo, probably take the same stance as you on this topic. The one thing we all agree on is that salvation is through faith, and the law is not what saves. I have been in a wide range of churches throughout my life from legalistic to quite liberal. On a personal level, I have difficulty with the lackadaisical attitudes displayed in many churches. I do not go to church to watch go-go dancers on the stage. (That was not an exaggeration. :giggling: ) On the flip side, extreme legalism is certainly detrimental as well. When someone teaches that man is cursed because the sabbath is observed on Sunday rather than the day it was originally intended, and blames all sorts of illness and maladies on things like that, then there is a problem.

For me, when Jesus gave the two commandments and said that all the laws are within the two (and certainly they are) the difference is a shift from observing the law out f a strict legalism, to observing the law based in love for God and man. It is a difference in observing the sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown with all the intricate man-created interpretations of the law, to a shift in an understanding that observing the sabbath and keeping it holy is really about taking a day (any day) to set aside to devote to rest and to God. God gave us a day of rest, because he knows our bodies need it. It is for our physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well being. The intention was never about what the Jews created it to be. I am certainly not ignorant about how their interpretations of the laws have led to such impossible practices that they enslave themselves. I think most people actually do not realize how stringent the interpretations are. It is beyond observing at a set time, and "not working". Not working includes not flipping a light switch, not being allowed to learn new material (mental activity), not being allowed to carry things, not doing the dishes, etc. The problem is not with the law, but the interpretation, and reliance on it, and judging others based upon it. I only used the sabbath as an example of one law. Jesus often pointed out the hypocrisy in the Jews manner of observing the law. I am certainly not in favor of legalistic attitudes.

I was going to say more, but I'll step off the soapbox for now. :p I really should be trying to take a nap.

In the end we will probably have to agree to disagree. :)

[Hiroshi]

That's fine. Take your time. I hope you feel well soon.

I will say that the majority of Christians, imo, probably take the same stance as you on this topic. The one thing we all agree on is that salvation is through faith, and the law is not what saves. I have been in a wide range of churches throughout my life from legalistic to quite liberal. On a personal level, I have difficulty with the lackadaisical attitudes displayed in many churches. I do not go to church to watch go-go dancers on the stage. (That was not an exaggeration. :giggling: ) On the flip side, extreme legalism is certainly detrimental as well. When someone teaches that man is cursed because the sabbath is observed on Sunday rather than the day it was originally intended, and blames all sorts of illness and maladies on things like that, then there is a problem.

For me, when Jesus gave the two commandments and said that all the laws are within the two (and certainly they are) the difference is a shift from observing the law out f a strict legalism, to observing the law based in love for God and man. It is a difference in observing the sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown with all the intricate man-created interpretations of the law, to a shift in an understanding that observing the sabbath and keeping it holy is really about taking a day (any day) to set aside to devote to rest and to God. God gave us a day of rest, because he knows our bodies need it. It is for our physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well being. The intention was never about what the Jews created it to be. I am certainly not ignorant about how their interpretations of the laws have led to such impossible practices that they enslave themselves. I think most people actually do not realize how stringent the interpretations are. It is beyond observing at a set time, and "not working". Not working includes not flipping a light switch, not being allowed to learn new material (mental activity), not being allowed to carry things, not doing the dishes, etc. The problem is not with the law, but the interpretation, and reliance on it, and judging others based upon it. I only used the sabbath as an example of one law. Jesus often pointed out the hypocrisy in the Jews manner of observing the law. I am certainly not in favor of legalistic attitudes.

I was going to say more, but I'll step off the soapbox for now. :p I really should be trying to take a nap.

In the end we will probably have to agree to disagree. :)

Go-go dancers? Good heavens!

Sorry, I have not posted to anyone for a while because I have been so busy. But now back to the discussion. Paul uses a word a number of times that means "the basic, elementary things" of this wicked world.

Colossians 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
Colossians 2:20 "Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules"?
Galatians 4:3 "So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world."
Galatians 4:9 "But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?"

Reading through Galatians chapter 4 and Colossians chapter 2 it becomes clear that this expression does not only mean the requirements of the Mosaic Law. But it does include it.

Colossians 2:8 mentions human philosophy and traditions. And Colossians 2:16-17 unquestionably speaks of the Law requirements of the Sabbath and other things. But also listed there are things that the Law did not require like asceticism (Colossians 2:23) and worship of angels (Colossians 2:18).

Now, as you pointed out, Galatians 4:8 does speak specifically of pagan idolatry and practices. But when, in the next verse, Paul then refers to the "weak and miserable principles" he still includes in this expression also the keeping of the Mosaic Law, along with other worldly ideas and practices. Indeed, most of what he has to say in his letter to the Galatians has to do with Christians not keeping the Law of Moses. In Galatians 6:12-13 Paul says: "Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh."

Obviously, Jews were making a big issue here and persecuting those who did not get circumcised. Paul was exhorting Christians to take a firm stand and not to give in to the pressure.

[PouringRain]

Obviously, Jews were making a big issue here and persecuting those who did not get circumcised. Paul was exhorting Christians to take a firm stand and not to give in to the pressure.

Your words here agree with what I said about one of the problems being judging other based upon the law. None of it shows that man is not permitted to follow the law if he chooses, nor that the law in itself is bad/wrong. It is the interpretation (and application) of the law that became problematic and wrong.

Just as Galatians was also speaking to former pagan members, the letter to the Colossians was speaking to heretical teachings that had arisen in the church, and gnosticism.

[Hiroshi]

Just as Galatians was also speaking to former pagan members, the letter to the Colossians was speaking to heretical teachings that had arisen in the church, and gnosticism.

I agree with everything that you say here. But I disagreed with you when you said that the "special days and months and seasons and years" (Galatians 4:10) refer to pagan celebrations. I believe that this was instead a reference to Jewish festivals celebrated under the Mosaic Law (even though the Galatians had been pagans, not Jews). Paul says much the same thing in the same context to the Colossians: "with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come" (Colossians 2:16-17). These are obviously requirements of the Mosaic Law.

Your words here agree with what I said about one of the problems being judging other based upon the law. None of it shows that man is not permitted to follow the law if he chooses, nor that the law in itself is bad/wrong. It is the interpretation (and application) of the law that became problematic and wrong.

A difficulty here is that the early Christians were not concerned with someone choosing to follow the Mosaic Law simply because he likes it. They were concerned with whether or not it was a requirement from God, even after the ransom sacrifice had been provided. The answer was: no, it wasn't a requirement.

In these circumstances it seems inappropriate for a Christian to observe the Law, which would cause others to think that it was required.