It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
vv2-3 He warns them solemnly that Christ and circumcision cannot be combined.
This is true in a formal sense, because circumcision is the act which identifies the man as a Jew and part of the covenant of Moses.
If they receive circumcision ( as a new act) then Christ will no longer have any benefit for them.
originally posted by: wisvol
"vv2-3 He warns them solemnly that Christ and circumcision cannot be combined. "
This may be a phrasing thing but INRI has been circumcised.
f they receive circumcision ( as a new act) then Christ will no longer have any benefit for them.
"If they receive circumcision ( as a new act) then Christ will no longer have any benefit for them. "
This contrasts with the report of Mark 5:17 in a way I find disturbing, please explain.
I think that explains what I was talking about.
If you want to be picky, "belonging to Christ and believing in the need to be circumcised cannot be combined".
I can only suppose that you have accidentally misquoted the reference. I see no contrast with the report that the Gerasenes wanted Jesus to leave the area after he healed the man with an unclean spirit. Try again.
originally posted by: wisvol
What about the circumcised Christians? Do they not belong to Christ?
This is not about what has happened to them physically (Paul himself had been circumcised at birth).
It is about where they are placing their trust.
I would compare it with the difference between resting and movement.
The state of trusting in Christ crucified is a condition of rest.
The state of trusting in “works of the Law” is a condition of movement.
There is no possibility of combining the two, because anyone who begins to move has already ceased to rest.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
originally posted by: wisvol
What about the circumcised Christians? Do they not belong to Christ?
As I said in my reply to someone else;
This is not about what has happened to them physically (Paul himself had been circumcised at birth).
It is about where they are placing their trust.
Paul's point is that the work of Christ is complete enough to make submission to the Law unnecessary.
They came to Christ by placing their trust in him.
If they submit themselves to the Law after all (as they begin to do if they accept the need to be circumcised), then they are implicitly taking their trust away from Christ and placing it in their own obedience to the Law.
I said it best in a passage near the end.
I would compare it with the difference between resting and movement.
The state of trusting in Christ crucified is a condition of rest.
The state of trusting in “works of the Law” is a condition of movement.
There is no possibility of combining the two, because anyone who begins to move has already ceased to rest.
Yes, Jesus gave an assurance that he did not come to abolish the law. And why do you think he needed to give that assurance? Surely it was because his attitude to the Law of Moses was already coming under suspicion, after his criticisms of some of the details. The best-known example is his comment on the provisions for divorce, but others can be found.
So we are obliged to distinguish between two senses of "the Law". There is what Paul calls "the written code", the detailed provisions attributed to Moses, and on the other hand there are the basic principles indicating how God wants us to behave.
The Law which Paul attacks is the written code, while he can be seen to endorse the basic principles.
The law which Jesus promises to defend is NOT, I believe, the "written code", but the basic principles, as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.
That is supported by the usage of James, whose ideas of "law" seem to be governed by the Sermon on the Mount.
SoI think the difference between the three of them is only verbal.
This is not about what has happened to them physically (Paul himself had been circumcised at brith). It is about where they are placing their trust.
the need to be circumcised
If they submit themselves to the Law after all (...), then they are implicitly taking their trust away from Christ and placing it in their own obedience to the Law.
I said it best in a passage near the end.
I would compare it with the difference between resting and movement. The state of trusting in Christ crucified is a condition of rest. The state of trusting in “works of the Law” is a condition of movement. There is no possibility of combining the two, because anyone who begins to move has already ceased to rest.
Yes, Jesus gave an assurance that he did not come to abolish the law. And why do you think he needed to give that assurance? Surely it was because his attitude to the Law of Moses was already coming under suspicion, after his criticisms of some of the details. The best-known example is his comment on the provisions for divorce, but others can be found.
So we are obliged to distinguish between two senses of "the Law". There is what Paul calls "the written code", the detailed provisions attributed to Moses, and on the other hand there are the basic principles indicating how God wants us to behave.
The law which Jesus promises to defend is NOT, I believe, the "written code", but the basic principles, as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.
That is supported by the usage of James, whose ideas of "law" seem to be governed by the Sermon on the Mount. SoI think the difference between the three of them is only verbal.
originally posted by: wisvol
it seems that Matthew also is and reports that Jesus said (paraphrased) that he didn't come to abolish the Law, which to me means that the covenant of Abraham isn't repealed.
You chose the word "need" twice in this context, and once in italics
One may choose the Law over other legal systems to free oneself. Please do appreciate the difference between this and submission.
Trusting the Law does not preclude trusting Christ in any way.
This comparison would mean literally "anyone who begins to trust the works of the Law (what ever that is) has already ceased to trust in Christ crucified."
the basic principles indicating how God wants us to behave were not revealed to me personally, and therefore I tend to look for insight in the detailed provisions attributed to Moses.
But he DID want to abolish details of the "written code". He said that the provision of divorce was not what God wanted; it was obviously well-known that he did not like the stoning of adulterers, which is why they tested him on it; in his discussion of the illegal things which David did, he made it clear that the ritual provisions of the Law were not as important as the Pharisees thought they were. So he was indeed abolishing parts of the "written code". It was only the basic principles of the law which he was promising to conserve. Try getting hold of this distinction between "details of the written code" and "fundamental principles", because if you bring up "did not abolish the law" again I will only repeat the above answer.
Paul is arguing against this claim that the Galatians need to be circumcised in order to come to God.
The difference between submission and choice does not matter for this issue.
If a man trusts his belt, he does not use anything else. If he wears braces as well (if you're an American, that is probably "suspenders"), that implies that he does not fully trust his belt.
If he decides to rely on the Law as well, that gives away the fact that he does not fully trust in Christ.
But someone who takes up anything in addition to Christ is not fully trusting Christ. See above.
They were known to Jesus, and he tried to explain them in the Sermon on the Mount. Also I should point out that the Christian has the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised, and the Spirit is "the mind of God". "... words not taught by human wisdom, but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit" (1 Corinthians ch2 v13).
originally posted by: wisvol
Look friend, I'm not asking for anyone's foreskin. I'm saying Jesus is circumcised and therefore your claim that circumcision and trust in Christ are not compatible is false.
Not fully trusting your understanding of Paul isn't "not trusting Christ." Be humbler about it.
Paul is not objecting to the physical state of circumcision; he is objecting to the teaching, being spread at the time by certain "false brethren" that Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised in order to come to God.
So all you are doing now is quibbling about the wording of one way of expressing it.
"My understanding" of Paul doesn't come into it.