Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

Sean asked:

So was the Jerusalem council in error? (Acts 15)

No Sean, I don't think they were in error with their decision not to require uncircumcised adult Gentile males to become circumcised to keep the law of Moses.

The testimony they all heard and had experienced convinced them, correctly, that God was saving even them! This certainly surprised them, because they had been taught to believe that they were special...

Yes, they did believe they were special. They believed this because they mistakingly thought circumcision and keeping the law were the righteous works God wanted for salvation.

Act 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Act 15:2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

So the question that the council was suppose to answer was: Do you need to be circumcised to be saved? The Law of Moses was clear, if you are not circumcised you will be cut off from God's people. (Gen 17:14, Lev 12:3)

But that's not all they deliberated on:

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

dmatic, this is the very thing you keep saying. We are to keep the law of Moses. The text is explicit. This is the issue the council decided on, the answer was:

Act 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
Act 15:20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

The laws mentioned here are considered Noahide Laws, they preceded the law of Moses.

It is obvious to me that they were not meeting to decide whether or not the Gentiles should be taught, and encouraged to obey, the commandments of God as given through Moses.

But that is exactly what it says (Acts 15:5-6).

This was understood, as they were aware of the fact that Gentiles could go to the synagogues every sabbath, in every city, to hear Moses read, and then gradually apply what they were hearing!

Yes, and that is the reason they mention any "food" restrictions at all.

Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.

Eating in an offensive manner right in front of a Jew you are trying to reach with the Gospel would be very offensive. So the reason the Jerusalem council concluded the way they did was:

Act 15:21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

This is the reason given, to not offend those you are trying to reach who hear Moses read in "every city" on the "Sabbath".

It is admitted that they don't have to become circumcised or keep the law of Moses. So at this point, were they teaching:

Mat 5:19 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.

With this ruling, Gentiles were going to be breaking nearly every command of Moses! And this is what the Apostles commanded! Are they going to be called "least" in the kingdom for this? Remember, you quoted Jesus as saying not one jot or tittle will pass away. Circumcision of the foreskin passed away, the Levitical Preisthood passed away because the law changed (Heb 7:12). That's more that a jot or a tittle.

Maybe what Jesus said is actually true:

Mat 5:18 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.

Maybe all is fulfilled. Jesus said he had done everything His Father sent Him to do:

Joh 17:4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.

And on the Cross Jesus said "It is finished". The new covenant was confirmed with the shedding of His blood, not long after he made the verbal declaration of the new covenant. The "old" covenant was thus fulfilled as the new one took it's place. Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. When He fulfilled it, He said "It is done".

I must admit that I don't yet understand what "yoke" they, nor their fathers could bear, was!

I would most naturally be the very thing they were there to discuss:

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

What else could it possibly be?

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

[Guest]

Very well said Sean!

[Guest]

Homer, I condensed the sermon you recommended onto ten pages, but have only had the "fortitude" to read through page seven so far. Sometimes, over the weekend and beginning, I had to read a paragraph, and then put it down for a while because I could not really believe that a Berean was agreeing with it.

I suspect that a discussion of it with you may not be beneficial, but I could be wrong.

Initially, I agreed, generally, with Campbell's discussion about the man-made, or babylonian origin of dividning the Law into three parts, namely, Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial (or civil as I've heard it called).
But, oddly, either in ignorance or malevolence, he suggests that the two greatest commandments are separate from the Law of Moses, when the truth is that they are contained within his writings. The first, at Deut. 6:5 and the second greatest, at Lev. 19:18b.

It is apparent that the author does not understand Paul's useage of the phrase, "under the law".

There are many errors in understanding contained within this "sermon" but I'll mention one more on page "7" "of ten" in my copy, the first full paragraph under the section 3d. "In the third place, we conclude from the above premises, that there is no necessity for preaching the law in order to prepare men for receiving the gospel."( It is the next paragraph, which is where I 'could not take it any more' !), he quoted Jesus' Great Commission saying: "teach the disciples to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you" but then wrongly says that the disciples were authorized to preach the gospel, but not the law, to every creature. Then he suggests that in the book of Acts contains "but not one word of law-preaching in the whole of it!"

This erroneous statement also shows that he does not understand even the term "law" for which he is so disdainful.

So, I started to read the book of Acts, and found the following references to the Law within the first seven chapters: Acts 1:16,20; 2:1, 16-18,25-28,34,35; 3:22-26; 4:25,26; 6:2,4,11,13,14 ans bascially the whole chapter7 where Stephen preaches from the history contained within the Torah.

Chapter 6:13,14 is very instructive in this matter, for we see that "False" witnesses were set up to accuse Stephen falsely that he was preaching against the law..saying that Jesus would change the customs delivered to us by Moses!"

This accusation was FALSE! Stephen was not preaching this! Yet guys like your sermonizer continue to be false witnesses!

If you want to talk about any of this, I will, Lord willing. Otherwise, it may be better for you to simply bring forth your position, and try to make your case.

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Sean, Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have merely a few minutes to respond, so I'll start with this statement of yours:

Yes, they did believe they were special. They believed this because they mistakingly thought circumcision and keeping the law were the righteous works God wanted for salvation.

Act 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

I'm not sure where you get that they thought they were special for the reasons you cite, though receiving the oracles of God through the prophets certainly contributed to their pride.

The circumcision according to the custom of Moses may also be considered the circumcision of the heart! This would seem to be necessary for salvation, or being made whole. The circumcision of Abraham's covenant was without a doubt, the physical circumcison to which you probably refer.

Then you wrote:

So the question that the council was suppose to answer was: Do you need to be circumcised to be saved? The Law of Moses was clear, if you are not circumcised you will be cut off from God's people. (Gen 17:14, Lev 12:3)

The first of your references is referring to the Abrahamic covenant, whereas the second, may not be the reference you were searching for.

Then you wrote:

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

dmatic, this is the very thing you keep saying. We are to keep the law of Moses. The text is explicit. This is the issue the council decided on, the answer was:

i believe the text is saying that some were arguing that they needed to be physically circumcised in order to keep the law of Moses. This was the one question they were trying to determine. Do Gentile, uncircumcised converts, need to become circumcised in order to keep the law of Moses?

The keeping of the Law of Moses was a no-brainer, in other words. This was assumed! But, did they need to get circumcised as adults in order to be in accord with the keeping with "Moses"?

They ruled they did not need to become circumcised as adults to keep "Moses". I'm not sure what they taught gentiles about their new-born males. Do you know? Besides, why, after supposedly solving this did Paul have Timothy circumcised?...even as an adult?

I gotta go..sorry.

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

So, I started to read the book of Acts, and found the following references to the Law within the first seven chapters: Acts 1:16,20; 2:1, 16-18,25-28,34,35; 3:22-26; 4:25,26; 6:2,4,11,13,14 ans bascially the whole chapter7 where Stephen preaches from the history contained within the Torah.

dmatic, you've got me confused again. The verses you listed quote from all over the old testament; some are prophets, some psalms, and some are just recounts of history. Do you consider all that "the Law"?

This may have been covered already (and if so I apologize -- this is a long thread,) but what do you, dmatic, do when you transgress the Law?

[Guest]

Thanks MichelleM.

It is a long thread isn't it? We were trying to discern if the sabbath day holy command was intended for Christians.

I believe it is.

When I sin (transgress), I acknowledge it, and seek forgiveness from God, and hope in His mercy. And I try to learn from my error. I believe that Y'Shua is my advocate with the Father. Though, if God chastizes me, I try to not be discouraged, because I know that He disciplines those whom He loves! And I know that He does so for my own good too!

You also asked about the TeNaKh..The Torah, the Writings and the Prophets, which are contained in the "Old Testament" scriptures, all of which are profitable for our instruction, for reproof, for training in righteousness, and for correction....

These instructions are the "Law" of God to us! They are His instructions that we should not dismiss nor mock, because he has given them to us because he loves us! Not so that we can "earn" our way to heaven...nor become "justified" by "works", but so that we can be sanctified, and allow Him to write his Laws within our hearts and minds, and so, come into agreement with Him and live according to His commandments...and become faithful, instead of faithless. Thus, His delivering us from sin.

Hope that helps.....peace, dmatic

[Guest]

dmatic,

You wrote:

Then he suggests that in the book of Acts contains "but not one word of law-preaching in the whole of it!"

This erroneous statement also shows that he does not understand even the term "law" for which he is so disdainful.

You have totally missed the point of the sermon. The question is whether a person must be shown, by The Law, that they are a sinner preparatory to preaching the gospel to them. Can you show from the book of Acts, not prophecy about Jesus, or historical events such as the story of Joseph in Egypt, etc., but preaching of The Law as binding upon man? Can you show where, as they went to the Gentiles, they ever accused them of not keeping The Law? Better yet, can you show where anyone, other than a Jew, was ever accused of not keeping the Sabbath?

[Guest]

The circumcision according to the custom of Moses may also be considered the circumcision of the heart! This would seem to be necessary for salvation, or being made whole. The circumcision of Abraham's covenant was without a doubt, the physical circumcison to which you probably refer.

Then you wrote:

So the question that the council was suppose to answer was: Do you need to be circumcised to be saved? The Law of Moses was clear, if you are not circumcised you will be cut off from God's people. (Gen 17:14, Lev 12:3)

The first of your references is referring to the Abrahamic covenant, whereas the second, may not be the reference you were searching for.

i believe the text is saying that some were arguing that they needed to be physically circumcised in order to keep the law of Moses.

So your response is to cast doubt on issue of physical circumcision in the law of Moses? I'm not sure I understand. Since it is contained in the Law.

Lev 12:1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
Lev 12:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean.
Lev 12:3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Sorry I didn't proofread my citation better.

Jesus affirmed it both in the Abrahamic and Mosaic law:

John 7:21 Jesus answered and said to them, "I did one work, and you all marvel. 22 Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?

Jesus confirmed that they circumcised even if it fell on a Sabbath day so they would not break the law of Moses. Jesus was not speaking here about circumcision of the heart. This point proves that anyone who spoke against physical circumcision was breaking the law of Moses. Unless Jesus is in error.

Then you wrote:

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

dmatic, this is the very thing you keep saying. We are to keep the law of Moses. The text is explicit. This is the issue the council decided on, the answer was:

This was the one question they were trying to determine. Do Gentile, uncircumcised converts, need to become circumcised in order to keep the law of Moses?

The keeping of the Law of Moses was a no-brainer, in other words. This was assumed!

If it was a no-brainer, then why did they teach it (the Law of Moses) could be broken by not commanding circumcision?

I'll post this one more time, because for some reason you are ignoring it:

Acts 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

What does the underlined portion of Acts 15:5 say?

dmatic,
I'm sorry but I don't think I can be of any further assistance. You seem to be reading what you want into the text, I presume because it's saying something you don't like. May God bless you.

[Guest]

Thank you Sean.

The law of Moses states to circumcise male children at eight days old.

The council was meeting to discuss whether or not, Gentiles adults should be circumcised.

I'll try to recheck the greek, to see if that pesky "and" is in there, regarding the believers that thought the gentile adults should be circucised "to keep the law of Moses".

As for trying to help me, I appreciate your honest efforts. You may quit if you feel so led, but before you do, would you answer for me, how you reconcile Jesus' statement at Mt 5:19, with what you believe?

thanks again,

dmatic

[Guest]

Sean, you also wrote:

John 7:21 Jesus answered and said to them, "I did one work, and you all marvel. 22 Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. 23 If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?

Jesus confirmed that they circumcised even if it fell on a Sabbath day so they would not break the law of Moses. Jesus was not speaking here about circumcision of the heart. This point proves that anyone who spoke against physical circumcision was breaking the law of Moses. Unless Jesus is in error.

They were trying to accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, which He did not do, so He corrected their unrighteous judgment.

Are you trying to make the point that the Jerusalem Council WAS in error, for ruling that adult circumcision was not neccessary?

Also, you menitoned the "Noahide" laws. Which ones are you speaking about regarding the commandments that Council did direct the Gentiles to start keeping? Are you saying that those four laws are not from "Moses"?

thanks, dmatic