Following OT Law

[sheya joie]

We aren't likely to agree on the reason for Timothy's circumcision; however, Paul has very plain teachings concerning the Law, including circumcision and keeping the holy days. We have covered them.

Act 16:1 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:

Act 16:2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.

Act 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Apparently this was to avoid problems over Timothy's mixed heritage. He was half Jewish, half Gentile. Full Gentiles, though, Paul said did not need to be circumcised.

The fact is that these instructions were given to a mixed mulititude that came out of Egypt, not just Israelites came with them heck Caleb who went out with Joshua to spy the land was from Esau, not an Israelite by any means but still in the end because of His belief and faith he was counted as one just as those who believe in the Messiah are counted into the congregation.

Caleb wasn't an Israelite??? Where do you get that? The Bible says

Num 13:6 Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh.

Sorry, freaking out a bit because I have a son named Caleb and researched the name pretty thoroughly before we named him.

Hope this doesn't cause a hijack of the real topic of this thread.

[~Shalhevet~]

Another question: Somewhere I read that if you follow one of these commands you are to follow them all. Now this scares me because I know that I cannot follow them all. That would be impossible. So is it best to not follow the law at all since it cannot be followed perfectly?

[mizzdy]

The fact is that these instructions were given to a mixed mulititude that came out of Egypt, not just Israelites came with them heck Caleb who went out with Joshua to spy the land was from Esau, not an Israelite by any means but still in the end because of His belief and faith he was counted as one just as those who believe in the Messiah are counted into the congregation.

Caleb wasn't an Israelite??? Where do you get that? The Bible says

Num 13:6 Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh.

Sorry, freaking out a bit because I have a son named Caleb and researched the name pretty thoroughly before we named him.

Hope this doesn't cause a hijack of the real topic of this thread.

Caleb was accounted to the tribe of Israel thats true but his linage does come from Esau. Numb. 32: 11-12 shows that Caleb was the son of Jephunneh the Kennizzite which I understand is from Esau via Gen. 36:10-11, descendant of Kenaz who was the clan leader of the Edomites. Calebs ancestory may have been from Esau but he left Egypt with the rest of them and he and Joshua were the only ones over the age of 20 that made it into the promised land for their faith and love of God. Caleb is a wonderful name and one any child can proudly wear for their own!

[priest4Him]

Hi Preist4him, where did you get all that from? its more than the bible tells us. Rom 14:14 "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean to him it is unclean"

Note: Paul is 1. convinced of this by Jesus. 2. He says nothing is unclean of itself. 3. Only conscience makes it so. and 4. v14 is the mind of Jesus and not an invention of man.

Imo it is irrefutable that dietry laws given to Israel do not apply to Christians, and this is plain in the scripture above and elsewhere.

Repentance requires that i stop breaking the ten commandments, but its extra biblical imo to say i must start observing laws that even Abraham did not.

My dear friend you said

[priest4Him]

At the risk of starting a debate (I hope not!!), do you think it is okay for a Christian to follow the laws of the OT...eating clean, observing the feasts, etc.?

KNOWING MOTIVE WOULD HELP. AS FOR ME FOLLOWING THE SPIRIT IS ENOUGH.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

[Guest shiloh357]

You are setting aside the plain reading of the Text over your personal opinions.

No, I am not. I am demonstrating the fact that if Paul was as against circumcision as you claim he was, then his life is in stark contradiction to his teachings.

If the Paul you read about preformed sacrifices and routinely preformed circumcisions, then it seems that you are reading to the Bible instead of allowing it to speak to you.

Whether or not Paul "routinely" performed sacrifices or circumcisions is irrelevant. If Paul was against them as you claim, he would not have performed them at all.

In Acts 21, Paul performed sacrifices for men under a nazarite vow for the express purpose of proving that he was not teaching the people to forsake the law of Moses. He was refuting the very kind of false claim people continue to assign to him today.

We aren't likely to agree on the reason for Timothy's circumcision;

As for Timothy's circumcision, the Bible tells us exactly why Timothy was circumcised. It was for the sake of expediency. It would have been a stumbling block where the ministry of Timothy was concerned. If Paul were anti-circumcision, he would not have done it at all.

however, Paul has very plain teachings concerning the Law, including circumcision and keeping the holy days. We have covered them.

Paul said nothing against circumcision or the Holy Days. What Paul taught was that the circumcision and the Holy Days were not to be an obstacle to Gentile liberty. Paul did not condemn Jews for continuing to be circumcised, as circumcision predates the law and really has nothing to do with salvation in the first place.

It was a Judaizing cult Galatians that tried to link the rite of circumcision and the law to salvation and it was in that context that Gentiles were warned against circumcision and keeping the law. They were substituing Christ for the law as the agent of salvation.

Paul preached against using the law as a legalistic means of attaining righteousness that only comes through Christ. Paul NEVER condemns the law itself.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul preached against using the law as a legalistic means of attaining righteousness that only comes through Christ. Paul NEVER condemns the law itself.

While Paul never condemns the law, it must be pointed out that he abandoned the law as the sole means of righteousness once he understood the doctrine of grace.

Yeah, so what??? No one here is saying that the law should be used as a means of attaining righteousness. I think you are trying to refute an argument that no one here has raised.

Having a Torah-positive perspective does not equate with believing that righteousness can be attained by the law.

[Guest shiloh357]

Duplicate post.

[Guest yod]

Another question: Somewhere I read that if you follow one of these commands you are to follow them all. Now this scares me because I know that I cannot follow them all. That would be impossible. So is it best to not follow the law at all since it cannot be followed perfectly?

the verse you reference is not saying that there is no purpose or value in the Law. What it is saying is that if you are trying to earn righteousness through the Law (as opposed to trusting) then you will have to keep every yod and tav to be made righteous.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul preached against using the law as a legalistic means of attaining righteousness that only comes through Christ. Paul NEVER condemns the law itself.

While Paul never condemns the law, it must be pointed out that he abandoned the law as the sole means of righteousness once he understood the doctrine of grace.

Yeah, so what??? No one here is saying that the law should be used as a means of attaining righteousness. I think you are trying to refute an argument that no one here has raised.

Having a Torah-positive perspective does not equate with believing that righteousness can be attained by the law.

It's not the Torah-positive perspective I mind so much as it is the arrogance that comes from those who dabble in Judaica, as if there is some advantage in being observant. I'm reminded of the story of the Pharisee and the publican.

What do you mean "dabbling in Judaica?" This is not witchcraft or something occultic. Who is claiming that they have some advantage by keeping the Festivals, and exactly what particular advantage are they claiming to have??? The arrogance assertion is nothing but a value YOU have assigned to others, because you don't have realistic, legitimate or substantive complaint.

As for the wise-crack about the Pharisee and the publican, you need to get something straight. Jesus' criticism of some of the Pharisees and scribes was not that they were keeping the law. Their problem was hypocrisy in that they condemned in others what they justified in themselves. They were not keeping the Torah and had created a system with all kinds of loopholes for them, while hypocrticially holding everyone else to different standard of behavior. They were able to justify their NONOBSERVANCE while demanding observance from the common man.

The Pharisees that Jesus criticized were not Torah-observant. They were hypocritical legalists and again THAT is what the Bible condemns. Nowhere in the New Testament does it require or condemn anyone pertaining to keeping the festivals or whatever. The Bible makes room for both and so should we.