Paul seems to be warning gentiles very strongly and explicitly against torah keeping ever in Galatians 5, likening it to going back to slavery after one has been set free.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Acts 15/Galatians 2 To C or not to C
- Thread starter Verifyveritas76
- Start date
Paul seems to be warning gentiles very strongly and explicitly against torah keeping ever in Galatians 5, likening it to going back to slavery after one has been set free.
Unless it is that gold flecked thing....
This is an extreme misrepresentation of Paul!!!
Help me to understand Galatians 5 better.
Are the Galatians Jews or Gentiles?
Is circumcision part of torah keeping?
Is Paul using circumcision as a metaphor for torah keeping here?
Is Paul advising for or against circumcision?
What is Paul's reason for what he is advising above?
What is the person in verse 8 advising the Galatians to do?
What does Paul think about that person in verse 8 (see verse 10)?
Is there anything in this passage that indicates this is a temporary command?
Context of Galatians... there are multiple groups being dealt with in this letter but specifically in this portion of chapter 5 he is dealing with the group that teaches “another gospel” which is “keep the law for salvation”
Vs 4 indicates that he is dealing with folks who are attempting to be justified by keeping the law.
Chapter 1 sets the context...
Galatians 1:6-9 NASB
[6] I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; [7] which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! [9] As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
Please remember Peter’s admonition...
“And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.”
2 Peter 3:15-17 ESV
I would counter that the topic here is rather the necessity of Torah for salvation and entry in to the fellowship and probably forced or coerced Torah. I would struggle to find the dividing line for what parts of the Old Testament we keep and what we throw away. Would keeping the 10 Commandments be disallowed then? Incest and bestiality aren't forbidden in the New Testament. Can we label them sin without falling back on the Law?Even gentile believers are commanded to follow the Law on sexual matters. It just gets very hard to maintain some parts of our faith if Law is gone completely and I don't see the guidelines for what to keep and what to throwaway.
No one's asked for a refund yet. As long as you don't count my exes and who does?
Galatians is THE hardest letter in Scripture to understand. As @Pacman said, through the context of the letter, Paul clearly addresses several different groups/errors. Our biggest problem is that we don't have the report or letter that precipitated Paul's response.
Christendom typically pulls some verses from Galatians and then errantly teach things like 'going back to Torah is bondage.' Simple logic should put that to bed unless we believe Yah rescues Israel from slavery in Egypt so He could put them in bondage at Sinai.... nevermind the many references in Scripture that state Torah is life, liberty, and peace. Those that keep it are righteous and blessed. Paul says, 'imitate me as I imitate Messiah.' What did Yeshua DO? He kept the Torah of Moses while continually putting tradition in second place as not having anywhere near the same authority.
Galatians was likely written before Acts 15 which is why Paul had to face down the 'party of the circumcision' who wanted the law (and, I believe it is the ORAL law in view here) kept for salvation.
The Torah is not burdensome. Honestly, I have way more freedom as a Torahkeeper than I ever felt when in mainstream Christendom. The oral traditions add an abundance of weights that while argued to be assumed voluntarily, quickly become an expectation that can be very burdensome. This is what I believe Paul warns against.
Books have been written parsing Galatians and very few come close to getting it right.
Right. And so according to Paul a good way not to be one of those guys that are trying to keep the law for salvation is to not allow yourself to be circumcised. He is telling his gentiles readers not to do it.
There is a law in Texas that you have to have a license plate on the front of your car. The thing is when they made the law they forgot to put a penalty in it, and so now it is largely defunct. They can pull you over and chat with you about it, but they can not do anything about it because there is no longer any penalty. It no longer functions as a law. It can be a guideline. You might like the idea of a license plate in the front. You might even like the idea of pleasing the Texas legislature. But as a law now it is defunct.
When it comes to Christ we are no longer mere citizens. We are heirs, adopted into God's family, we are the sons and daughters of the supreme judge. We have a get out of jail free card. Ours sins are not forgiven in part. They are forgiven in whole. There are no more penalties. The law no longer acts as a law for us any longer. We are now free of that burden and that fear.
For torah keepers they have to mutilate the flesh. That is what the law requires. They have to keep the letter of the law. They have to circumcise or they are not true torah keepers.
We who are free of the law are free to ask ourselves what does God really require? Does he really care about mutilated fresh, or does he really care about what circumcision symbolizes (Duet 10:16)? We who are free care nothing about mutilated flesh. We only care about pleasing God (This is the kind of worshiper that Jesus is referring to in John 4).
For this reason we are the true circumcision and not them (Phillipians 3:3).
The only previous value in the mutilated flesh was to get you to change your heart. Since we know now that the change of heart is what God wants, there is now zero value in the mutilation of the flesh.
We can skip straight to the valued part, the change of heart. Going back to mutilations is a step backward and not what God wants. It focuses on the wrong thing. We should focus on the right thing.
For this reason, those who preach a different gospel, the mutilated flesh gospel, are according to Paul "dogs" and "men who do evil" (Phillipians 3:2).
Do not be a dog. Do not be a man who does evil. Do not do it. Do not preach it.
@Kevin, please don't react emotively and turn this into an argument, other readers are finding this useful (at least I am). @cnystrom is just quoting scripture - possibly untactfully, but these statements do exist, we just need to understand to whom they apply. Furthermore, all he is saying is orthodox Protestant teaching, which is a valid perspective. Please everybody keep this calm so the rest of us can continue to learn from both sides of the discussion.
Edit: The post this refers to has been removed by the author, but I'll leave this one up for now as a general call for shalom.
Edit: The post this refers to has been removed by the author, but I'll leave this one up for now as a general call for shalom.
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
Galatians 4:21 - 31
Hagar and Sarah
21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
24These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:
“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.” e
28Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” f 31Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
Why doesn't Paul say following the law pleases God here? Who here thinks Ishmeal is the Muslims? Just asking, not trying to make a statement.
Hagar and Sarah
21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
24These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:
“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.” e
28Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” f 31Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
Why doesn't Paul say following the law pleases God here? Who here thinks Ishmeal is the Muslims? Just asking, not trying to make a statement.
Last edited by a moderator:
The point is not what I think. As @FollowingHim pointed out I was quoting Paul. My point in doing so is to point out what Paul thought of the teaching and those who taught it.
If a founder of our faith calls someone who teaches circumcision for gentiles a "dog" and and "men who do evil" then it is not a small point. It is a cardinal difference and a major point in our faith and those that teach something else are outside the faith.
This is an old slam against the teaching of Paul and is covered in the Bible itself. Paul's teaching is not advocating license.
As a Christian we are no longer led by laws. Instead we are led by the Spirit (Galatians 5:18).
For example, the law gives a speed limit. It does not take in account other factors like the weather. Maybe your highway speed limit is 85, but maybe there is a real bad snow storm. And it is unsafe to drive 85 anymore. Legally you still can drive 85 even though it is no longer safe. You are following the law, but you are no longer safe to yourself or others.
It is true that if you take away the law then people with no spirit of safety could drive 100 and in put us all at risk. These people needs laws.
However, if all people had a spirit of safety in them there would be no need for laws and people would still drive safely. They would naturally slow down when needed, etc. They no longer need an external force to make them do the right thing at the right time. They have an internal spirit that is an even better guide than an external one.
The law is good, not bad, but the important thing for us to understand is that it was made for the law breakers (1 Timothy 1:9) - That is not supposed to be us anymore.
My point is that God's clear and plain instruction (through the letters of Paul) is for gentiles not to be circumcised, thus not be torah observant. I do not see how you can read Galatians and Philippians and come to any other conclusion. Further it is also clear that Paul's teaching is not just about circumcision itself, but rather the taking up of the whole law (torah).
Our circumcision as gentile Christians is not of the foreskin, but of our whole flesh (Colossians 2:11-13). There is no value in foreskin only circumcision for us gentile Christians anymore. Teaching it takes away from the teaching that has value, which is that we need to circumcise our whole flesh. We need to be transformed as it says in Romans 12:2.
As to the charge that this is my own interpretation, I had a direct challenge and request for teaching on Galatians 5 with specific questions that so far no one has been willing to take up. What is a good alternative interpretation of these verses? If I am wrong, please answer my questions.
Side Note:
It is true that Paul circumcised Timothy in Acts 16:3, but it also lists his motivation. It is not to keep torah for torahs sake, but rather to be more acceptable to the Jews. It is clear from the context that this is an example of 1 Cor 9:20.
P.S. Kevin. If you want to get personal, despite our difference of opinion on this topic, I am truly a big fan of yours. Best wishes.
Last edited:
C
Cap
Guest
Romans 2:28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.
Incorrect. He puts circumcision and uncircumcision in the same boat, describing both as profiting nothing. If he is telling them not to he circumcised he is then also telling them not to be uncircumcised. Obviously something else is going on here. You have to be one or the other. He must be talking about the salvation issue again.
Ouch. I have to admit sir that I would have never believed you would ascribe to such beliefs. Am I correct in saying that you believe we do not have to obey any rules of scripture as long as we "know" God and have a circumcised heart?
I struggle to accept that you live your life that way or encourage your children to either. I suspect that you believe quite a few rules laid down by God in the Bible are still applicable and must be obeyed. The argument you just articulated though could be used (and indeed is) by all manner of sinners to justify their lifestyles.
The biggest problem I see with your stance that keeping Torab is a sin is simply that it is never clearly identified as such. We're never told not to do it, dezpite some surprisingly adept logical gymnastics.
We can stay in Acts 15 and solve this whole debate. The entire premise of the Council of Jerusalem was that Torah observance was the accepted norm. What was being decided was whether or not there was an alternative that would mot be a roadblock for gentiles. There was never even a question of whether Peter or James or any of the rest of them would continue to follow Torah. It was explicit that they would and even that the Gentiles would have a path to observe it too. The statement explicitly references the continued access of gentile believers to Moses and the prophets. Paul happily agreed with this statement. I am flummoxed at any claim to the contrary.
@cnystrom ... not even sure where to begin unpacking the last couple posts.
To honestly believe everything you wrote, one has to assume that God can't make up His mind and His standards, previously called 'good, righteous, everlasting,' are suddenly valueless, then in the end, they are the very standard all mankind gets held to if they were the standard for Messiah's rightoeusness.
Even more ironic, you base a significant portion of plural understanding squarely on Torah commands, then say it is 'bondage' and 'I don't gotta do that, nananah. ..'
Sorry, bro, but there is a major disconnect somewhere in here.
So, here are two direct questions:
1. Has the day of the Lord happened yet?
2. Have heaven and earth passed away?
Blessings.
To honestly believe everything you wrote, one has to assume that God can't make up His mind and His standards, previously called 'good, righteous, everlasting,' are suddenly valueless, then in the end, they are the very standard all mankind gets held to if they were the standard for Messiah's rightoeusness.
Even more ironic, you base a significant portion of plural understanding squarely on Torah commands, then say it is 'bondage' and 'I don't gotta do that, nananah. ..'
Sorry, bro, but there is a major disconnect somewhere in here.
So, here are two direct questions:
1. Has the day of the Lord happened yet?
2. Have heaven and earth passed away?
Blessings.
I have to admit that all of this seems like very weak sauce. Paul circumcised Timothy to be more acceptable to the sinful dogs? It hardly seems credible that the fearless Paul would cause Timothy so much pain and inject him into so much pain to mollify Godless sinners like that. Be that as it may, I had not seen your Galatians 5 challenge. I will start a new thread and we will hash it out. I realize that looked at in isolation it seems like a slam dunk for your side but in context it is simply a word of warning to Torah types.
The question here is, what "law" is Paul speaking of? The problem being that the Jews who were persecuting them at that time (v29) followed both the written Torah and the oral laws of the Pharisees. So this statement can be read from both perspectives to reach two different conclusions. Is the law that he is comparing to slavery the Torah, or the laws of the Pharisees?
Ding, ding, ding!. Someone asking the correct question!
