Thoughts on Acts 6 ; 11 and 13

[Humblepie]

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ [Messiah Yeshua] and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers who are with me, Here we see that Paul opens by establishing his credibility, thus placing the necessary weight and value on what he needs to communicate to the Galatians. Continuing on...
Galatians 1:2-9
To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ [Messiah Yeshua], who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Paul certainly grabs attention in the first few verses. Paul accuses the Galatians of going after a different gospel. Not only that, but Paul speaks curses to those that preach a different gospel. Later, we will find out what the “different gospel” is, and how it defines all of Paul’s correction to the Galatians going forward.

Galatians 1:10
For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul mentions that he is interested in God’s approval, not man’s approval. This is to highlight the honorable intent related to his correction to the Galatians. In addition, it appears to hint that the errors of the Galatians might be rooted in the social and religious pressure of appeasing others. This is further evident when Paul said this earlier: “...but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” And... “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” From this, we can begin to understand that the Galatians were being influenced by a doctrine stemming from a certain group of people. Or perhaps the Galatians are being led astray by multiple people with multiple doctrinal errors. We don’t know exactly just yet, but more will be revealed later...offering us some more clarity. Later we will find that there is a certain group of people teaching doctrines of men and a “different gospel.” Before then, Paul wants to highlight that he too was once influenced by the doctrines of others. He mentions that he was zealous for the traditions of his fathers, and he had done many things in error. However, once the truth was revealed to him, he did not consult with anyone, nor let himself be influenced in the wrong direction again. In fact, we will find that the group bringing in a “different gospel” to the Galatians, is closely related to the doctrine Paul used to subscribe to in his former life before Messiah Yeshua. Paul is literally saying...”I have been there, done that...and so I am the best person available to you to show you some of the same errors you are falling into...” Paul reviews this with the Galatians, early in his letter, to establish credibility once again, and also to build more trust with the Galatians that the gospel he preaches is the correct gospel. And again, he is also making it clear that in his own past he has made the same mistakes that the Galatians are presently making...suggesting he is worth listening to...and that his concerns are valid. Galatians 1:11-17 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ [Messiah Yeshua]. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. You can see here that Paul appears to be making a strong case that the “different gospel” influencing the Galatians is related to Paul’s former life as a Pharisee. That is not completely established yet, but at this point it seems to be hinted. Paul continues... Galatians 1:18-24 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me. In Galatians 2, Paul continues his story. This second chapter introduces some of the difficult passages in which Paul appears to be telling the Galatians that they are not to observe God’s Law regarding circumcision. Galatians 2:1-5 – Is Paul Against Circumcision? The issue of circumcision may be the most complicated subject to study in the New Testament because many are not aware of the differing views and debates surrounding this topic in the first century. For instance, some Jewish sects made circumcision a prerequisite for salvation (Acts 15:1) as a mark that was required to join their sectarian community. One such sect mentioned in Scripture is referred to as the “Circumcision Party” (Acts 11:2; Galatians 2:12; Titus 1:10). This sect believed that you were “saved” only if you were a member of their group. The apostles obviously did not share this view. Galatians 2:1-5 is often cited to try to prove that converted Gentiles are no longer to be circumcised according to the Law of God:

Galatians 2:1-5
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus [Messiah Yeshua], so that they might bring us into slavery—to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
Often it’s taught that the “false brothers” mentioned in verse 4 were observing the Law of God and that they were attempting to compel the Galatians also to observe God’s Law, bringing the Galatians into “bondage.” It’s taught that this doctrine of keeping God’s Law is contrary to the freedom that we have in Christ. Paul and Titus did not yield to those compelling them to keep God’s Law. Thus, many Christians conclude that observing God’s Law is bondage and against the Gospel. However, this is a flawed interpretation. Remember, Paul said that the Galatians were abandoning the heart of the Gospel message (Galatians 1:6-9).

He warned against seeking the approval of man, and that the Gospel he preaches is not from man but from God (Galatians 1:10-12).

Thus, the “different gospel” being preached to the Galatians by these false teachers was not from God but from men.

This is a crucial point!

Obviously, the Law of God did not come from men; it came from God.


And if the false gospel being pushed on the Galatians was a manmade doctrine, then the false doctrine in Galatians was not the doctrine that believers ought to obey God’s Law! Paul was not preaching against the Law of God—something he calls holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12)—but against a misuse of the Law of God.


To be continued.

 

[Humblepie]

The Circumcision Party had distorted some aspects of God’s Law—namely circumcision—and incorporated it into their different gospel. Like the situation in Acts 15, some were teaching the Gentiles at the Church of Galatia that they needed to formally convert to their sect of Judaism, get circumcised, and take on the entire Torah of Moses before being considered part of God’s covenant people. Also like in Acts 15, Paul fiercely opposed that false doctrine. Why? Among many reasons, it took the emphasis off of the work of Messiah for salvation and placed it on the work of man. This will become clearer as we continue through Galatians. Also, the focus of Acts 15 is centered around the circumcision doctrine circulating in Galatia, making it relevant to the verses in Galatians 2.
The issue in Galatians 2:1-5 is not that the “false brothers” were teaching obedience to God’s Law regarding circumcision. They actually weren’t (for example see Galatians 6:13).

Galatians 6:13
For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.

The false teachers were attempting to “compel” Gentile believers to get circumcised as a prerequisite to salvation and inclusion into the people of God. This was not obedience to God’s Law; this was an attempt to coerce the Gentiles into submitting to manmade doctrine and systems of ritual conversion, making the work of Messiah irrelevant.

That’s why Titus wasn’t “compelled” to be circumcised (Galatians 2:3)—he wasn’t compelled to submit to the manmade formulas of these false brothers.

Again, the apostles taught that salvation and inclusion into God’s people came through faith in Messiah, which circumcises our hearts and gives us the inward desire to obey God (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6). And obedience to God’s Law—including physical circumcision—follows from that basis. This is the difference between a true and false application of circumcision. The false brothers misused circumcision in their manmade formula for salvation and conversion. When we believe that our obedience to men’s doctrines can save us, we have misplaced our faith. The apostles, on the other hand, taught circumcision correctly as a law of God that we observe out of faith. We keep God’s Law to please God, not men. In a nutshell, that’s Paul’s entire message in his letter to the Galatians. We’ll continue to see this as we explore these difficult passages.

This leads us into the next topic in Galatians.

Galatians 2:14 – Living Like A Gentile As we move forward through Galatians, we see a conflict involving the Circumcision Party (Galatians 2:12). Again, the members of this group were the ones teaching the false doctrine that Gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved:

Galatians 2:11-14
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

What is going on here? Paul is writing about confronting Peter about his hypocrisy. Peter willingly ate with the Gentiles at first, but when the Circumcision Party came to Antioch, he withdrew from table fellowship with them. Why? Because the Circumcision Party would have frowned upon it, and Peter feared their unrighteous judgment. The Circumcision Party held the opinion that table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles was forbidden. We see this sentiment expressed in the book of Acts: “So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, ‘You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them’” (Acts 11:2-3). Paul rightly rebukes Peter as a hypocrite for fearing man more than God. Peter’s actions were in direct conflict with not only the Gospel message but also the Torah (e.g., Leviticus 19:34). If God is willing to receive the Gentiles on the basis of their faith, then Peter should have too. Nothing in this passage suggests Peter was breaking God’s dietary laws—which is a common interpretation of this event. That would be reading something into the text that isn’t there. Furthermore, it doesn’t make sense for Paul to rebuke Peter if all he was doing was attempting to get the Gentiles to take on obedience to God’s Law since, again, Paul himself taught observance of God’s Law to his Gentile readers. When Paul accuses Peter of forcing the Gentiles to live like Jews, he wasn’t accusing Peter of forcing them to keep God’s Law; he was rebuking Peter for appearing to side with the Circumcision Party in his refusal of table fellowship with the Gentiles. Peter’s actions gave the impression that he agreed with the Circumcision Party that the Gentiles could not be included as part of God’s people unless they ritually converted.

To be continued:

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Humblepie,

The Circumcision Party had distorted some aspects of God’s Law—namely circumcision—and incorporated it into their different gospel.

My estimate is that Gentile Christians were not circumcised, and yet you seem to be trying to get around this clear teaching by somehow saying that the "Circumcision Party" distorted this teaching. Also I do not accept that Gentile Christians kept the Sabbath.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Humblepie]

Greetings again Humblepie,

My estimate is that Gentile Christians were not circumcised, and yet you seem to be trying to get around this clear teaching by somehow saying that the "Circumcision Party" distorted this teaching. Also I do not accept that Gentile Christians kept the Sabbath.

Kind regards
Trevor

You don't have to accept it, but in the end you can't tell Jesus you never knew the truth.

In our saviors own words.

Matt 5:19
"19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Do you follow the teachings of God or the teachings of men?

2 Peter 2:21

21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.


In Brotherhood.

 

[Humblepie]

Greetings again Humblepie,

My estimate is that Gentile Christians were not circumcised, and yet you seem to be trying to get around this clear teaching by somehow saying that the "Circumcision Party" distorted this teaching. Also I do not accept that Gentile Christians kept the Sabbath.

Kind regards
Trevor

Two fifth-century church historians—Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen—testify that almost all Christians outside of Alexandria and Rome continued to observe the Sabbath alongside Sunday (Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 5.22; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 7.19). As scholar Kenneth Strand observes, this evidence demonstrates that “even as late as the fifth century almost the entire Christian world observed both Saturday and Sunday for special religious services” (Kenneth A. Strand, “The Sabbath and Sunday From the Second Through Fifth Centuries,” The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing, 1982), 324). So, the earliest Christians did not consider Sunday a replacement for the Sabbath. Again, outside of Alexandria and Rome, most Christians observed both days. So, what happened? Well, during the first and second centuries A.D., there was growing conflict between Jews and the Roman empire. This conflict “made it necessary for Christians to develop a new identity in order to avoid the repressive and punitive measures (fiscal, military, political, and literary) aimed at the Jews” (Lawrence T. Geraty, “From Sabbath to Sunday: Why, How and When?” Partings: How Judaism and Christianity Became Two (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2013), 266). In Alexandria and Rome, where persecution of Jews was especially fierce (Josephus, Antiquities 18.8.1; 19.5.2; Jewish Wars, 2.18.7), there was a strong motivation to disassociate Christianity from Judaism. This led to the Christian communities in those places abandoning Sabbath observance early on (See Skip MacCarty, “The Seventh-Day Sabbath,” Perspectives on the Sabbath: 4 Views (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011), 42). But once again, these motivations were not universal. As we saw earlier, most Christians living outside of Alexandria and Rome continued to observe the Sabbath in addition to Sunday as late as the fifth century AD. In any case, the earliest Christians did not consider Sunday a replacement of the Sabbath. Sunday was its own religious day. In fact, originally, Sunday was not even a day of rest (Kenneth A. Strand, “The Sabbath and Sunday From the Second Through Fifth Centuries,” The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing, 1982), 330). So, how did Sunday eventually become recognized as the “Christian Sabbath”? Well, on March 7, 321 AD, the emperor Constantine decreed that Sunday would be a day of rest (Codex Justinianus 3.12.3). Christian historian, Justo González, summarizes the significance that this edict had for Christians.

(Now that Sunday became a day of rest, civil laws had to determine what work was lawful on that day. This was soon followed by ecclesiastical laws, also determining which activities were allowed on Sunday, and which were forbidden. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that Sunday was now connected with Sabbath rest and with the commandment ordering it. This was the great change introduced by Constantine’s decree. It brought about a connection between Sunday and Sabbath rest that was not present in earlier Christian thought and devotion. In the long run, this would lead to discussions as to whether Sunday abolished the Sabbath, whether Christian worship should be on the Sabbath, and so on. )

After the Reformation, in English-speaking countries, Sunday not only replaced the Sabbath but also even came to be called the Sabbath. Protestant Christian confessions, sermons, and literature from this period all affirm the Sabbath commandment, yet Sunday is what is meant. So, the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday not by the Scriptures, but by political edicts and church councils, centuries after the time of the apostles. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with going to church on Sunday, or any other day for that matter. Historically, we know that Christians did hold religious services on Sunday. However, there is a problem when we break commandments for the sake of keeping traditions. We must not be like the Pharisees, whom Jesus rebuked by saying, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition” (Mark 7:9).

 

[Humblepie]

Isaiah 56:6

6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

 

[Humblepie]

Acts 13
14 From Perga they went on to Pisidian Antioch. On the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and sat down. 15 After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”

42 As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. 43 When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.




44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord.

Gentiles observing the sabbath.


1 Corinthians 5:8
(Speaking to a Gentile church)
8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, (passover) not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Paul urging Gentiles to observe the passover.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Humblepie,

You don't have to accept it, but in the end you can't tell Jesus you never knew the truth.

What you have not clearly stated is whether or not you consider that the First Century Gentile Christians were under the obligation to be circumcised and keep the Sabbath as stipulated under the Law of Moses. Are present day Gentile Christians under the same obligation.

Also how do you explain the following:
Leviticus 4:27–29 (KJV):27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; 28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
Are we under obligation today to offer a kid of the goats for a sin offering?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Humblepie]

Are we under obligation today to offer a kid of the goats for a sin offering?

Is there a temple and temple priest? Without a temple you can't have sacrifice.

In AD 70, when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, Jewish sacrifices essentially stopped. God's word was explicit that no sacrifice was to be burnt except on the altar at the tabernacle and, later, the temple. With the destruction of the temple and the exile of the Jews, there was no place to give an authorized sacrifice.


If you sacrificed today you would actually be breaking the law.




There is also no sanhedron as well to judge you so that's why we don't stone someone who teaches against the law of moses, but when Christ returns so will everything in the law.


As far as circumcision goes there was a sect called the circumcision party that taught that you must follow the Torah in order to be saved, that was against Paul's teaching, and this is what pauls letter to the Galatians addressed. That's is why Titus did not get circumcised because he wasn't compelled to just so the sect of the Circumcision party could boast in his flesh.



As far as being obligated to follow God's (perfect law)
James 1:25.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

I wouldn't say obligated, but if you are compelled to follow God's will then certainly. See not every Christian in in the same place in their walk with Christ. Maybe some have just entered the faith and to lay that upon them would be a yoke just as Peter stated in Acts 15.

Remember we do not follow the law for Salvation, the law shows us how unrighteous we are and that we deserve death, and that points to the messiah.

We follow the law because we are saved and want to do his will.
We are human however and we will sin, but we can thank God he extended grace to us.

Just to finish out your quote in Scripture to help back my point of us not having a system to follow the sacrificial law.



Leviticus 4:30-31

And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.

31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Humblepie,

Again many words and a repetition of your thesis, but I do not consider that you have simply and clearly answered the following:
What you have not clearly stated is whether or not you consider that the First Century Gentile Christians were under the obligation to be circumcised and keep the Sabbath as stipulated under the Law of Moses. Are present day Gentile Christians under the same obligation.

And you bypass what I am suggesting about the Sin Offering, by the following:

Are we under obligation today to offer a kid of the goats for a sin offering?
Is there a temple and temple priest? Without a temple you can't have sacrifice.

Yes, the Temple and Temple Sacrifices ceased in AD 70, but are you suggesting that the early Jewish and Gentile Christians offered Sin Offerings in Jerusalem after the death and resurrection of Christ? You insist on an OT reference:
Psalm 40:6–8 (KJV): 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, 8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

And this is expounded by Paul:
Hebrews 10:4–10 (KJV): 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

What was given in type and shadow has been superseded and fulfilled in Christ. I suggest the same is true concerning circumcision and the Sabbath. The First Century believers did not have to wait until AD 70 to forsake the Law concerning the Sin Offering. The Way of Life in Christ has replaced the way of life under the Law of Moses.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Humblepie]

I wouldn't say obligated, but if you are compelled to follow God's will then certainly.

Read Galatians in context, Paul clearly states the context in chapter 1: 10-11

One gospel came from God, Paul's gospel,

one came from men, the circumcision party gospel.

one taught that obeying the law is a requirement to enter the faith.

one taught that you enter the faith first then learn and follow the torah as your faith grows to be obediant to Gods will, but never to justify you.




I apologize for "so many words" as it is a complicated subject that requires many words. Sometimes it took Paul weeks of teaching using "many words" to convince priest and the jewish people that were zealous for the law, of the truth of salvation using only old testament scripture.



The early Christians didn't forsake the law in 70ad in regards to burnt offerings, they actually followed the law by not offering them. for they could not offer burnt offerings .

Trevor, you are firm in your belief that the law and grace cannot coexist.
I understand, I was raised in the same doctrine, but it never set well with me knowing that the old and new testament contradicted one another, that was until my eyes were opened. The WHOLE Word of God is TRUTH just as it says in both testaments and applical to daily life.
They are in perfect harmony.

There are two major extremes and both are not scriptural.
1. Must obey the law in order to be saved
2. There is no law at all.

Paul firmly opposed both views.


you continue to use the word OBLIGATED.
Nobody is obligated to follow the law for Salvation. Salvation is a FREE gift from God. To aquire salvation you only need to confess your sins and believe in your heart that God has raised Christ from the dead.


(Acts 11:2; Galatians 2:12; Titus 1:10). This sect believed that you were “saved” only if you were a member of their group. The apostles obviously did not share this view.

Galatians 2:1-5 is often cited to try to prove that converted Gentiles are no longer to be circumcised according to the Law of God:

Galatians 2:1-5
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus [Messiah Yeshua], so that they might bring us into slavery—to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.



Often it’s taught that the “false brothers” mentioned in verse 4 were observing the Law of God and that they were attempting to compel the Galatians also to observe God’s Law in order to be saved, bringing the Galatians into “bondage.”

It’s taught that this doctrine of keeping God’s Law is contrary to the freedom that we have in Christ.
Paul and Titus did not yield to those compelling them to keep God’s Law. Thus, many Christians conclude that observing God’s Law is bondage and against the Gospel. However, this is a flawed interpretation.


Remember, Paul said that the Galatians were abandoning the heart of the Gospel message (Galatians 1:6-9).

He warned against seeking the approval of man, and that the Gospel he preaches is not from man but from God (Galatians 1:10-12).

Thus, the “different gospel” being preached to the Galatians by these false teachers was not from God but from men.

This is a crucial point!

Obviously, the Law of God did not come from men; it came from God.



The LETTER to the Galatians should be read as a letter and in context, just pulling a verse and basing your theology on that verse out of context would be detrimental.
Example.
Exodus 32
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

We all know that there is no Evil in God.

The events that happened in Galatians led up to the decision in Acts 15. I clearly and concisely already covered that in a previous post.

If Paul clearly followed the law, and taught the opposite that would make him a hypocrite. Paul defended his position of keeping the Torah and teaching the same.

Acts 24:14
14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Paul had his hair cut because he was keeping a vow. Luke doesn't mention what kind of vow, but it is assumed to be a Nazarite vow because that is the only vow that involves the shaving of the head.

Acts 21: 18-20 and 24
18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that
there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

It is assumed that the vow was the Nazarite vow since that is the only vow that requires shaving the head.
James and the elders knew that there was no other sets of practices that could confirm and uphold Paul's adherence to the law more dramatically than the completion on the vow at the door of the temple in front of all the zealous believers.


Paul did not teach one gospel to Gentiles and a different gospel to the jews.


I hope I clearly answered your question with scripture.

Test it not only with new testament scripture but with all scripture.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Humblepie,

I apologize for "so many words" as it is a complicated subject that requires many words.

You continue to use many words and completely ignore whether the early Gentile believers were under the obligation of being circumcised, keep the Sabbath and offer a sin offering.

There are two major extremes and both are not scriptural.
1. Must obey the law in order to be saved
2. There is no law at all.

You seem to be focused on these two extremes, but the reality is that Jesus fulfills many aspects of the Law, and he expands the Law, revealing the motive power behind "Thou shalt not kill". The way of life in Christ, the crucified, resurrected life motivated by the love of Christ and the love of God in giving His Son supersedes the way of life under The Law as it is more complete and righteous.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Humblepie]

"You continue to use many words and completely ignore whether the early Gentile believers were under the obligation of being circumcised, keep the Sabbath and offer a sin offering"

Do you feel you are obligated to have no other God's before him?
What about murder? Are you obligated to not murder?
Eat things that were strangled? Drinking of blood? Temple prostitution?
Lying? Adultery? Covetous?
Are you obligated to follow these laws?
What law do YOU draw the line at?



The law only highlights how imperfect we are and shows us we deserve death for our sins, and that directly points to the messiah. Only his grace saves us from the second death. The law does nothing but condemn us but it is God's will. It's perfect, it's not burdensome. Gods law is truth.
When we sin (breaking of God's law) grace is greater.
However, Grace does not give us a free pass to sin wilfully as stated in Hebrews 10:26.
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

Are we obligated to follow all the law?
I think as our understanding grows so does our will to do what is true.
His holy spirit will compell us.
I do not believe his spirit compelled us to follow all the commands at the time of conversion, but as we grow we learn his will and follow it because it's truth.

If the forsaking of the law was preached from the beginning in early Christianity as you think it was, then very few jews that were zealous for the law would have believed, if any at all.
Deuteronomy 13 commands them to not believe, unless it follows The Torah and the prophets.

What they taught absolutely had to line up exactly with old testament scripture, down to the last "Jot"