Bible Study Acts 21:25

[jocor]

When you say Yahweh's name was only known in Jerusalem, do you mean among the Israelites, or do you mean in Jerusalem/Judah?

The Feasts were to be kept where Yahweh placed His name. While the Temple stood, that was Jerusalem. Now that the Temple is destroyed, His name is wherever believers are gathered to worship Him.

Where did the law change about going to Jerusalem three times a year? How did Yeshua fulfill that law, but not fulfill the purity laws?

Yeshua did not fulfill the law to keep the Feasts where Yahweh places His name. Believers are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Where we are, He is. Wherever we are, there the Feasts can be kept.

Gal_5:6 for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith through love working.
Gal_6:15 for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation;
I remember you saying that if a male is not circumcised or does not circumcise his children, he is sinning.
Paul clearly says here that physical circumcision or uncircumcision gets you nothing, nothing extra, nothing taken away. We know that when Paul uses the physical circumcision he is talking about the physical things of the Law of Moses.
Gal 5:2 lo, I Paul do say to you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing;
Gal 5:3 and I testify again to every man circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law;
I know you think that you can separate the righteousness to receive justification for salvation, from the righteousness that brings sancification, or holiness/purity. But I don't see how you can do that seeing Yeshua is the one who brings both to us.
1Co 6:11 And certain of you were these! but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were declared righteous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.

Gal 5:1-12 are only speaking against circumcision as a means to be justified (verse 4). Paul is emphasizing faith in Messiah over either circumcision or uncircumcision. Nothing else matters except being justified by faith.

If I am sinning eating something that is not a clean food under the Law of Moses, that means I am in rebellion against Christ, in your doctrine. But not in the new covenant doctrine. You can't tell me that our Jewish teachers, the apostles, would tell us Gentiles, that we could sin and yet they never teach eating by Moses' Law or wearing certain clothes or the big one physical circumcision.

I never said you were in "rebellion". Please don't put words in my mouth. If you come to the conclusion that believers should not eat unclean, but continue to willfully eat unclean, then you are in rebellion. I cannot understand your last sentence. The apostles taught we should not sin (not transgress the law). Whether we break any of the Ten Commandments or any lesser commandments it is still sin.

No there is no scripture that says that, that I know of. What I see in scripture though is that the law was given to the nation of Israel only. It kept them separated from the pagan nations. It was given by the God, Yahweh. So it was a sanctuary, a safe haven for them, when they stayed faithful. Just as Yeshua, and His commandments, are a safe haven for us from the evil around us.

The Law as a whole was given to Israel as a written code, but many laws of Yahweh existed in oral form long before Moses. Believers are grafted into the commonwealth of Israel. As such, we are to abide by the laws given to Israel by Yahweh. Those laws still keep us separate from pagan nations.

You are mistaken to believe the Law was a sanctuary. Yahweh and Yeshua are our sanctuaries. The Law merely tells us when we are sinning so we can go to Yeshua for cleansing. When we abide in Yeshua, we are safe in our sanctuary.

Heb 6:13 For to Abraham God, having made promise, seeing He was able to swear by no greater, did swear by Himself,
Heb 6:20 whither a forerunner for us did enter--Jesus, after the order of Melchisedek chief priest having become--to the age.
Yeshua, being the forerunner or firstfruits of the resurrection.
The Law of Moses, coming 430 after Abraham, could not change these two unchangeable things, not the promise or the oath.
I think you believe that those who eat by the Law of Moses are purer than the one who doesn't. Please, correct me if I am wrong about this.
Sin is not purity.

I'm not sure why you brought up Heb 6:13,20. I agree that the Law (in particular the OC) does not make the promise to Abraham void. I also agree that "sin is not purity". Sin defiles until it is repented of. If you were erroneously taught that stealing was no longer a sin under the New Covenant, would you be defiled if you stole something? I would say yes. You have been erroneously taught that eating unclean animal flesh is no longer a sin under the NC. It still defiles.

Lev 11:44 For I am YHWH your Elohim: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Lev 11:45 For I am YHWH that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your Elohim: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
Lev 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
Lev 11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm not sure why you brought up Heb 6:13,20. I agree that the Law (in particular the OC) does not make the promise to Abraham void. I also agree that "sin is not purity". Sin defiles until it is repented of. If you were erroneously taught that stealing was no longer a sin under the New Covenant, would you be defiled if you stole something? I would say yes. You have been erroneously taught that eating unclean animal flesh is no longer a sin under the NC. It still defiles.

Then you would have to say that one who is not circumcised is defiled/common/unholy. Which I know you believe is true, we have discussed circumcision before.
Paul was not just concerned about people being justified but also that they be holy and yet....
Gal 2:1 Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus;
Gal 2:2 and I went up by revelation, and did submit to them the good news that I preach among the nations, and privately to those esteemed, lest in vain I might run or did run;
Gal 2:3 but not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised--
Gal 2:4 and that because of the false brethren brought in unawares, who did come in privily to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage,
Gal 2:5 to whom not even for an hour we gave place by subjection, that the truth of the good news might remain to you.
Why wasn't he compelled to be circumcised?

 

[jocor]

Then you would have to say that one who is not circumcised is defiled/common/unholy. Which I know you believe is true, we have discussed circumcision before.

I do not believe that. I said sin defiles. It is not a sin to be uncircumcised. It is a sin for a person to not have their eight day old son circumcised.

Paul was not just concerned about people being justified but also that they be holy and yet....
Gal 2:1 Then, after fourteen years again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me also Titus;
Gal 2:2 and I went up by revelation, and did submit to them the good news that I preach among the nations, and privately to those esteemed, lest in vain I might run or did run;
Gal 2:3 but not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised--
Gal 2:4 and that because of the false brethren brought in unawares, who did come in privily to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, that us they might bring under bondage,
Gal 2:5 to whom not even for an hour we gave place by subjection, that the truth of the good news might remain to you.
Why wasn't he compelled to be circumcised?

For two reasons: 1) The false brethren wanted him circumcised for the wrong reasons, justification/salvation. Timothy was circumcised for a good reason, to further the Gospel 2) The commandment is for eight day old sons to be circumcised, not adults (Lev 12:3).

 

[Brother Mike]

I do not believe that. I said sin defiles. It is not a sin to be uncircumcised. It is a sin for a person to not have their eight day old son circumcised.


For two reasons: 1) The false brethren wanted him circumcised for the wrong reasons, justification/salvation. Timothy was circumcised for a good reason, to further the Gospel 2) The commandment is for eight day old sons to be circumcised, not adults (Lev 12:3).

Like the energizer bunny. Still going, taking the batteries out did nothing.

 

[jocor]

Like the energizer bunny. Still going, taking the batteries out did nothing.

Huh?

 

[Deborah13]

2) The commandment is for eight day old sons to be circumcised, not adults (Lev 12:3).

If an adult male was not circumcised he could not even participate in Passover. I'm sure you know this.

 

[jocor]

If an adult male was not circumcised he could not even participate in Passover. I'm sure you know this.

Extraordinary circumstances did allow for circumcision of an adult. In the case of Passover, an uncircumcised stranger could not eat of it unless he was circumcised first. We do not eat Passover lambs under the New Covenant. Therefore, there is no need to circumcise a Gentile convert for that reason.

 

[Deborah13]

Extraordinary circumstances did allow for circumcision of an adult. In the case of Passover, an uncircumcised stranger could not eat of it unless he was circumcised first. We do not eat Passover lambs under the New Covenant. Therefore, there is no need to circumcise a Gentile convert for that reason.

I apologized for the length of this post, much of it is scripture.
We cannot ignore the second part of that law.....
Exo 12:48 `And when a sojourner sojourneth with thee, and hath made a passover to Jehovah, every male of his is to be circumcised, and then he doth come near to keep it, and he hath been as a native of the land, but any uncircumcised one doth not eat of it;
Exo 12:49 one law is to a native, and to a sojourner who is sojourning in your midst.'
Exo 12:50 And all the sons of Israel do as Jehovah commanded Moses and Aaron; so have they done.
Exo 12:51 And it cometh to pass in this self-same day, Jehovah hath brought out the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt, by their hosts.

The first passover was done while in Egypt. The rabble (mixed multitude, who were not circumcised) who kept the first passover came out of Egypt with the natural born Israelites. After that, in order for them to be citizens of the nation of Israel they had to be circumcised. In order for them to have all the same rights and privileges of a citizen they had to keep all the same laws, the very first being circumcision.
When we look at the temple, we see that there is a wall between the court of the gentiles and the inner court (court of Israel). Uncircumcised gentiles were not allowed beyond that wall, to draw near. The very first law that Yahweh gave to Moses was that of circumcision of all males. A proselyte, who became a citizen of the nation, had to be circumcised no matter what age he was. If he wasn't, not only could he not eat the Passover, he could not draw near, and he was not a citizen of the nation. The Law of Moses prohibited him from being of the nation.
So can a adult gentile be circumcised today, yes he can. So if he thinks he is obligated to follow the Law of Moses, he must be circumcised, as the Law of Moses says he must.
That is what all the hub bub was about. The Jewish believers thought that the gentile believers had to be circumcised to be one of them because the Law of Moses said just that. So when Paul challenged that, many of the Jews said he was teaching against the Law.
1Co 7:17 if not, as God did distribute to each, as the Lord hath called each--so let him walk; and thus in all the assemblies do I direct:
1Co 7:18 being circumcised--was any one called? let him not become uncircumcised; in uncircumcision was any one called? let him not be circumcised;
1Co 7:19 the circumcision is nothing, and the uncircumcision is nothing--but a keeping of the commands of God.
1Co 7:20 Each in the calling in which he was called--in this let him remain;
1Co 7:21 a servant--wast thou called? be not anxious; but if also thou art able to become free--use it rather;
1Co 7:22 for he who is in the Lord--having been called a servant--is the Lord's freedman: in like manner also he the freeman, having been called, is servant of Christ:
So we see that those who were circumcised (servants) are also a freedman, and those who were uncircumcised is also a servant. But if one is called as a servant, circumcised, if he is able to become as the freeman, he should rather be as the freeman.

So when you say that believers who do not eat by the Law, wear clothes by the Law, etc. sin and therefore, will not receive the same blessings, may become sick, etc. that cannot be true. Who is a Jew, the one who is physically circumcised or the one who's heart has been circumcised, God says the one who's heart has been circumcised, is the true Jew, and a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel, by the faith of Abraham, while he was still a gentile.
Rom_4:12 and father of circumcision to those not of circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of the faith, that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham.
Rom_4:13 For not through law is the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, of his being heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith;
Do blessings come through the Law or do blessings come through faith in the Messiah? What greater blessing could be given to a natural Jew or any Jew by faith, then the Holy Spirit? That is why Peter was so amazed when Cornelius received the Holy Spirit. But God had prepared him by giving him the vision.
So those who are circumcised are not in sin and those who are not circumcised are not in sin.
So those who do not eat and do wear certain clothes, are not sinning. And those who do eat and do not wear certain clothes are not sinning.
The wall of division was torn down and now all, Jew and Greek can draw near, in worship, in forgiveness, in offerings, in blessings, etc.. And the veil was torn, destroyed, so that all can enter into the Holy of Holies.
Eph 2:14 for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down,
Eph 2:15 the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it,
G2189 - Feminine of G2190; hostility; by implication a reason for opposition: - enmity, hatred.

 

[jocor]

I apologized for the length of this post, much of it is scripture.
We cannot ignore the second part of that law.....
Exo 12:48`And when a sojourner sojourneth with thee, and hath made a passover to Jehovah,every male of his is to be circumcised, and then he doth come near to keep it, and he hath been as a native of the land, but any uncircumcised one doth not eat of it;
Exo 12:49 one law is to a native, and to a sojourner who is sojourning in your midst.'
Exo 12:50 And all the sons of Israel do as Jehovah commanded Moses and Aaron; so have they done.
Exo 12:51 And it cometh to pass in this self-same day, Jehovah hath brought out the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt, by their hosts.

The first passover was done while in Egypt. The rabble (mixed multitude, who were not circumcised) who kept the first passover came out of Egypt with the natural born Israelites. After that, in order for them to be citizens of the nation of Israel they had to be circumcised. In order for them to have all the same rights and privileges of a citizen they had to keep all the same laws, the very first being circumcision.

When we look at the temple, we see that there is a wall between the court of the gentiles and the inner court (court of Israel). Uncircumcised gentiles were not allowed beyond that wall, to draw near. The very first law that Yahweh gave to Moses was that of circumcision of all males.

“With the passage of time, thegerim were assimilated culturally and religiously. Doeg the Edomite, for instance, was a worshiper ofYHWHby the time of Saul (ISam. 21:8), as was Uriah the Hittite in the reign of David (IISam. 11:11). Hence, theger, in contrast to thenokhri, was required in many cases to conform to the ritual practices of the native Israelite. Thus,gerim were subject to laws dealing with ritual purification (Num. 19:2–10), incest (Lev. 18:26) and some of the food taboos (Lev. 17:10–16; but cf. Deut. 14:21). They were expected to observe the Sabbath (Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14), participate in the religious festivals (Deut. 16:11, 14), and fast on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:29). They were permitted to offer up burnt offerings (Lev. 17:8; 22:18; Num. 15:14ff.) and, if circumcised, even to sacrifice the paschal lamb (Ex. 12:48–49; Num. 9:14). Indeed, they, no less than the Israelites, were expected to be loyal toYHWH(Lev. 20:2; cf. Ezek. 14:5–8).” (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

In other words, the command to be circumcised in order to eat the Passover pertains only to Passover. It has nothing to do with becoming a citizen of Israel. Strangers had to obey the laws of Israel whether they were circumcised or not.

The first law that YHWH gave to Moses was Passover, not circumcision.

A proselyte, who became a citizen of the nation, had to be circumcised no matter what age he was. If he wasn't, not only could he not eat the Passover, he could not draw near, and he was not a citizen of the nation. The Law of Moses prohibited him from being of the nation.

Are you basing this conclusion solely on Ex 12:48-51? The phrase, “and he shall be as one that is born in the land,” should be understood as follows; “and he shall be as one that is born in the land (as far as how he keeps it).” The statement, “One law (torah) shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourns among you,” in context, pertains to the torah of the Passover as in Numbers 9:14:

“And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto YHWH; according to the ordinance (khuqqah) of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance (khuqquah), both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land.”​

So can a adult gentile be circumcised today, yes he can. So if he thinks he is obligated to follow the Law of Moses, he must be circumcised, as the Law of Moses says he must.
That is what all the hub bub was about. The Jewish believers thought that the gentile believers had to be circumcised to be one of them because the Law of Moses said just that. So when Paul challenged that, many of the Jews said he was teaching against the Law.
1Co 7:17 if not, as God did distribute to each, as the Lord hath called each--so let him walk; and thus in all the assemblies do I direct:
1Co 7:18 being circumcised--was any one called? let him not become uncircumcised; in uncircumcision was any one called? let him not be circumcised;
1Co 7:19 the circumcision is nothing, and the uncircumcision is nothing--but a keeping of the commands of God.
1Co 7:20 Each in the calling in which he was called--in this let him remain;
1Co 7:21 a servant--wast thou called? be not anxious;but if also thou art able to become free--use it rather;
1Co 7:22 for he who is in the Lord--having been called a servant--is the Lord's freedman: in like manner also he the freeman, having been called, is servant of Christ:nmbk

So we see that those who were circumcised (servants) are also a freedman, and those who were uncircumcised is also a servant. But if one is called as a servant, circumcised, if he is able to become as the freeman, he should rather be as the freeman.

Paul’s words on servants has nothing to do with circumcision. The circumcised were not servants. Paul was simply giving an example of remaining in the situation we were called whether you were circumcised or whether you were a servant.

So when you say that believers who do not eat by the Law, wear clothes by the Law, etc. sin and therefore, will not receive the same blessings, may become sick, etc. that cannot be true. Who is a Jew, the one who is physically circumcised or the one who's heart has been circumcised, God says the one who's heart has been circumcised, is the true Jew, and a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel, by the faith of Abraham, while he was still a gentile.
Rom_4:12 and father of circumcision to those not of circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of the faith, that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham.
Rom_4:13 For not through law is the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, of his being heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith;

It does not matter whether we are circumcised or not as far as suffering the consequences of sin. If an uncircumcised Christian decides to commit adultery, he may contract a sexually transmitted disease. If he eats pork, he may get trichinosis.

Do blessings come through the Law or do blessings come through faith in the Messiah?

Both. The Sabbath rest is a physical blessing as is the spiritual rest we have through Yeshua. Children are blessed when they honor their parents. We can live in peace when we love our neighbors as ourselves.

What greater blessing could be given to a natural Jew or any Jew by faith, then the Holy Spirit? That is why Peter was so amazed when Cornelius received the Holy Spirit. But God had prepared him by giving him the vision.
So those who are circumcised are not in sin and those who are not circumcised are not in sin.

You keep making the same mistake in statements like this. A person who is not circumcised has NOT sinned. He was NOT commanded to circumcise himself on the 8th day. The command was for his parents. Therefore, only the parents can sin in that regard.

So those who do not eat and do wear certain clothes, are not sinning. And those who do eat and do not wear certain clothes are not sinning.

Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). The law has NOT been made void through faith (Romans 3:31). Christians have conveniently abolished the law. Therefore, in their minds it is not sin. Since the law, in reality, has NOT been abolished, their sin remains. However, Yeshua’s blood cleanses us of sins of ignorance. Therefore, those sins will not result in a loss of salvation, but a loss of rewards come judgment day.

The wall of division was torn down and now all, Jew and Greek can draw near, in worship, in forgiveness, in offerings, in blessings, etc.. And the veil was torn, destroyed, so that all can enter into the Holy of Holies.Eph 2:14for he is our peace, who did make both one, and the middle wall of the enclosure did break down,
Eph 2:15the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,
Eph 2:16and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it,
G2189 - Feminine of G2190; hostility; by implication a reason for opposition: - enmity, hatred.

The “law of commandments contained in ordinances” is not Yahweh’s law, but man-made laws such as the wall built without Yahweh’s permission that separated the Jews from the Gentiles at the Temple. That physical, man-made wall caused a hatred between the two people. Yeshua abolished the hatred (enmity), not the Law of Yahweh.

 

[Deborah13]

In other words, the command to be circumcised in order to eat the Passover pertains only to Passover. It has nothing to do with becoming a citizen of Israel. Strangers had to obey the laws of Israel whether they were circumcised or not.

There were two different types of proselytes.
Semi-Converts.
In order to find a precedent the Rabbis went so far as to assume that proselytes of this order were recognized in Biblical law, applying to them the term "toshab" ("sojourner," "aborigine," referring to the Canaanites; see Maimonides' explanation in "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7; see Grätz, l.c. p. 15), in connection with "ger" (see Ex. xxv. 47, where the better reading would be "we-toshab"). Another name for one of this class was "proselyte of the gate" ("ger ha-sha'ar," that is, one under Jewish civil jurisdiction; comp. Deut. v. 14, xiv. 21, referring to the stranger who had legal claims upon the generosity and protection of his Jewish neighbors). In order to be recognized as one of these the neophyte had publicly to assume, before three "ḥaberim," or men of authority, the solemn obligation not to worship idols, an obligation which involved the recognition of the seven Noachian injunctions as binding ('Ab. Zarah 64b; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7)........
In contradistinction to the ger toshab, the full proselyte was designated as "ger ha-ẓedeḳ," "ger ha-berit" (a sincere and righteous proselyte, one who has submitted to circumcision; see Mek., Mishpaṭim, 18; Gerim iii.). The common, technical term for "making a convert" in rabbinical literature is "ḳabbel" (to accept), or "ḳareb taḥat kanfe ha-Shekinah" (to bring one near, or under the wings of, the Shekinah).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12391-proselyte

The first law that YHWH gave to Moses was Passover, not circumcision.

Sorry I wasn't more clear....
The Passover was first commanded in Egypt, and yes after they came out of Egypt He told them the details of it, But in order to partake of it again, they must all be circumcised first. That would include the mixed multitude that had partaken of it while in Egypt.

Paul’s words on servants has nothing to do with circumcision. The circumcised were not servants. Paul was simply giving an example of remaining in the situation we were called whether you were circumcised or whether you were a servant.

?? - You don't see the simile?
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye who are willing to be under law, the law do ye not hear?
Gal 4:22 for it hath been written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid-servant, and one by the free-woman,

Gal_4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal_4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal_5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

There is no way that you can possibly say that the Gal. verses are not talking about the Law of Moses, given at Mt. Sinai, the old covenant.

You keep making the same mistake in statements like this. A person who is not circumcised has NOT sinned. He was NOT commanded to circumcise himself on the 8th day. The command was for his parents. Therefore, only the parents can sin in that regard.

You can claim this all you want to, it will not change the fact that the Law of Moses says that all males must be circumcised in order to be of the nation of Israel, even the full proselyte, a convert to Judaism. It is the same today.
So if you say that one must do the other Law of Moses they must do this one as well.
The proselyte of the gate did not have to follow all the Law, he did not have to eat by Moses Law, he was expect to follow the laws given to Noah. But if he were a full proselyte he must follow all the Laws of Moses, all the food laws and circumcision.
Jas_2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
So you say because Yeshua is the Passover Lamb, an adult does not have to be circumcised, then what is the point in circumcising the 8 day son? What is the purpose of that? What is/was the purpose of the circumcision? Abraham was circumcised before the Law of Moses, as an adult, just like the full proselyte.

Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). The law has NOT been made void through faith (Romans 3:31). Christians have conveniently abolished the law. Therefore, in their minds it is not sin. Since the law, in reality, has NOT been abolished, their sin remains. However, Yeshua’s blood cleanses us of sins of ignorance. Therefore, those sins will not result in a loss of salvation, but a loss of rewards come judgment day.

Once again, I am not referring to justification but sanctification/puirty/holiness. It appears that you find some your sanctification in doing the purity laws found in the Law of Moses. I find my sanctification is in the blood of the Messiah, just as that is where I find my justification.
Heb 10:29 of how much sorer punishment shall he be counted worthy who the Son of God did trample on, and the blood of the covenant did count a common thing, in which he was sanctified, and to the Spirit of the grace did despite?

The “law of commandments contained in ordinances” is not Yahweh’s law, but man-made laws such as the wall built without Yahweh’s permission that separated the Jews from the Gentiles at the Temple. That physical, man-made wall caused a hatred between the two people. Yeshua abolished the hatred (enmity), not the Law of Yahweh.

That wall was still standing when Paul said those words, he was not talking about that wall. Neither did I say that Eph 2 says that Yeshua abolished the Law of Moses, in fact I said the enmity, I even gave the definition of that word.

But the whole boils down to who I know I am. I am not as Hagar, the bondwoman, the servant. I am as Sarah, the freewoman. Therefore, I am not in servitude in Mt. Sinai, the old covenant, but I am in servitude in the Messiah, in the new covenant.
Surely if those in Messiah were in sin by not doing the purity laws of the Law of Moses, at least one of the Apostles, especially Paul, would have said so and they don't. It is very clear in the NT what is sin, and the purity laws do not make the lists.
So you must show me where the purity laws are mandatory in the NT. If they are not mandatory then they are not sin, to do or not to do. It is mandatory that we do not murder, commit adultery, slander, steal, etc.

Col 3:11 where there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, servant, freeman--but the all and in all--Christ.

Col 3:12 Put on, therefore, as choice ones of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humble-mindedness, meekness, long-suffering,
Col 3:13 forbearing one another, and forgiving each other, if any one with any one may have a quarrel, as also the Christ did forgive you--so also ye;
Col 3:14 and above all these things, have love, which is a bond of the perfection,
Col 3:15 and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also ye were called in one body, and become thankful.

 

[jocor]

There were two different types of proselytes.
Semi-Converts.
In order to find a precedent the Rabbis went so far as to assume that proselytes of this order were recognized in Biblical law, applying to them the term "toshab" ("sojourner," "aborigine," referring to the Canaanites; see Maimonides' explanation in "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7; see Grätz, l.c. p. 15), in connection with "ger" (see Ex. xxv. 47, where the better reading would be "we-toshab"). Another name for one of this class was "proselyte of the gate" ("ger ha-sha'ar," that is, one under Jewish civil jurisdiction; comp. Deut. v. 14, xiv. 21, referring to the stranger who had legal claims upon the generosity and protection of his Jewish neighbors). In order to be recognized as one of these the neophyte had publicly to assume, before three "ḥaberim," or men of authority, the solemn obligation not to worship idols, an obligation which involved the recognition of the seven Noachian injunctions as binding ('Ab. Zarah 64b; "Yad," Issure Biah, xiv. 7)........
In contradistinction to the ger toshab, the full proselyte was designated as "ger ha-ẓedeḳ," "ger ha-berit" (a sincere and righteous proselyte, one who has submitted to circumcision; see Mek., Mishpaṭim, 18; Gerim iii.). The common, technical term for "making a convert" in rabbinical literature is "ḳabbel" (to accept), or "ḳareb taḥat kanfe ha-Shekinah" (to bring one near, or under the wings of, the Shekinah).
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12391-proselyte

The same source also says; "At this epoch, too, the necessity for determining the status of the "half-converts" grew imperative. By "half-converts" is meant a class of men and women of non-Jewish birth who, forsaking their ancestral pagan and polytheistic religions, embraced monotheism and adopted the fundamental principles of Jewish morality, without, however, submitting to circumcision or observing other ceremonial laws. They have been identified with the "yir'e Adonai" (the ρηβόμενοι τὸυ Θεόυ). Their number was very large during the centuries immediately preceding and following the fall of Jerusalem; Ps. xv. has been interpreted as referring to them."

Also, I believe there is a difference between becoming a convert to the Jewish religion and becoming a citizen of Israel.

?? - You don't see the simile?
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye who are willing to be under law, the law do ye not hear?
Gal 4:22 for it hath been written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid-servant, and one by the free-woman,

Gal_4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal_4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal_5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

There is no way that you can possibly say that the Gal. verses are not talking about the Law of Moses, given at Mt. Sinai, the old covenant.

Galatians is talking about the Law as embodied in the Old Covenant and the concern to not use that Law as a means of justification (the "yoke of bondage").

The proselyte of the gate did not have to follow all the Law, he did not have to eat by Moses Law, he was expect to follow the laws given to Noah. But if he were a full proselyte he must follow all the Laws of Moses, all the food laws and circumcision.

Are you a citizen of Israel based on Eph 2:11-13 and Romans 11:17? If so, then does that not make you a full proselyte through Yeshua?

So you say because Yeshua is the Passover Lamb, an adult does not have to be circumcised, then what is the point in circumcising the 8 day son? What is the purpose of that? What is/was the purpose of the circumcision? Abraham was circumcised before the Law of Moses, as an adult, just like the full proselyte.

It is a token or sign of the covenant between Abraham and his seed and Yahweh (Gen 17:10-11). We are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29).

Once again, I am not referring to justification but sanctification/puirty/holiness. It appears that you find some your sanctification in doing the purity laws found in the Law of Moses. I find my sanctification is in the blood of the Messiah, just as that is where I find my justification.
Heb 10:29 of how much sorer punishment shall he be counted worthy who the Son of God did trample on, and the blood of the covenant did count a common thing, in which he was sanctified, and to the Spirit of the grace did despite?

There are other things that sanctify us as well, but Yeshua is the primary means.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:​

That wall was still standing when Paul said those words, he was not talking about that wall.

Paul was not referring to the destruction of that literal wall. He was alluding to it to identify the means of the enmity and Yeshua's destruction of the enmity caused by man-made rules.

But the whole boils down to who I know I am. I am not as Hagar, the bondwoman, the servant. I am as Sarah, the freewoman. Therefore, I am not in servitude in Mt. Sinai, the old covenant, but I am in servitude in the Messiah, in the new covenant.
Surely if those in Messiah were in sin by not doing the purity laws of the Law of Moses, at least one of the Apostles, especially Paul, would have said so and they don't. It is very clear in the NT what is sin, and the purity laws do not make the lists.
So you must show me where the purity laws are mandatory in the NT. If they are not mandatory then they are not sin, to do or not to do. It is mandatory that we do not murder, commit adultery, slander, steal, etc.

What are you including as "purity" laws? Dietary laws? Forbidden relationships? Menstrual laws? Holiness laws?

 

[Deborah13]

Their number was very large during the centuries immediately preceding and following the fall of Jerusalem; Ps. xv. has been interpreted as referring to them."
Also, I believe there is a difference between becoming a convert to the Jewish religion and becoming a citizen of Israel.

Under the old covenant, there is no difference. Citizen of Israel and Judaism went hand in hand. The laws for religion and civil law were all in Moses' Law. In the new covenant some of the laws have not been restated.
The Law of Moses expired, it had an termination date, it was age-during. When Yeshua fulfilled the Law, not abolished the Law, the Law expired. When the temple and Jerusalem destroyed, no man was able to continue in the Mosaic system, the theocracy was over and has not been revived.

Galatians is talking about the Law as embodied in the Old Covenant and the concern to not use that Law as a means of justification (the "yoke of bondage").

Not according to scripture. Hagar is an allegory for the Law of Moses, which is bondage. So unless my not eating by the Law of Moses offends someone else, I am free to eat what I choose to eat. I am not in bondage to Moses' Law, for any reason and neither are you.

Are you a citizen of Israel based on Eph 2:11-13 and Romans 11:17? If so, then does that not make you a full proselyte through Yeshua?

I am a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel just as Abraham was 430 yrs. before the Law was give at Mt. Sinai, but not the physical nation of Israel. A full proselyte through Yeshua, yes, just as Abraham was. Yeshua is the acting and eternal High Priest and Mediator, not Aaron and Moses. Aaron and Moses and their posterity were only natural men acting as the agents of Yehwah for a time, that time had a start date and an end date and only for the physical nation of Israel.
Eph 2:19 Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God,
Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being chief corner- stone ,
I would almost bet that there were, in the 1st century, full proselytes in the nation of Israel, who rejected the Messiah and were cut off from the commonwealth of Israel, the household of God, just as there were natural born Israelites who were cut off.

It is a token or sign of the covenant between Abraham and his seed and Yahweh (Gen 17:10-11). We are Abraham's seed (Gal 3:29).

Yes, it is an outward sign. So why not the adult and just the 8 day son? Abraham was an adult and Ishmael was 13.
And Moses' Law says the full proselyte must be circumcised.

What are you including as "purity" laws? Dietary laws? Forbidden relationships? Menstrual laws? Holiness laws?

They would be things that are rituals that are not about loving your neighbor as yourself. Dietary laws don't effect me unless I offend someone else, to offend is not showing love for them as I would show love for myself. If I were to wear the tzitzit I would think that might offend a person who believes they are under the old covenant law, to them I would appear to be a hypocrite. Even though I find the tzitzit very appealing for some reason, it stirs my heart.
If we look at all the menstrual laws together, they may have had more than one purpose. I think mainly for cleanliness. They were rituals as well, seeing there were offerings attached.
When you say 'forbidden relationships' and 'holiness laws' what are you referring to? Can you give me an example?

 

[jocor]

Under the old covenant, there is no difference. Citizen of Israel and Judaism went hand in hand. The laws for religion and civil law were all in Moses' Law. In the new covenant some of the laws have not been restated.
The Law of Moses expired, it had an termination date, it was age-during. When Yeshua fulfilled the Law, not abolished the Law, the Law expired. When the temple and Jerusalem destroyed, no man was able to continue in the Mosaic system, the theocracy was over and has not been revived.

So, when the law expired, why did many of them come back again (laws against murder, adultery, stealing, coveting, bearing false witness, idolatry, fornication, divorce, homosexuality, etc.)? Seems pretty absurd to have them expire only to reinstate them. Also, "expired" means "cease to be valid", but now they are valid again? The fact is, they never expired or were abolished as Yeshua said in Matthew 5.

Not according to scripture. Hagar is an allegory for the Law of Moses, which is bondage. So unless my not eating by the Law of Moses offends someone else, I am free to eat what I choose to eat. I am not in bondage to Moses' Law, for any reason and neither are you.

No. Hagar is an allegory of the Old Covenant. Yes, you are free to eat whatever you want, but consequences will follow. You have no concept of the freedom and liberty the law provides. The unlawful use of the law as a means to justification or salvation is the bondage. The keeping of the law means freedom from sin. Not freedom through Yeshua after we sin, but freedom from sin before it is ever committed. By not breaking the law, we do not sin and keep ourselves free from it.

I am a citizen of the commonwealth of Israel just as Abraham was 430 yrs. before the Law was give at Mt. Sinai, but not the physical nation of Israel. A full proselyte through Yeshua, yes, just as Abraham was. Yeshua is the acting and eternal High Priest and Mediator, not Aaron and Moses. Aaron and Moses and their posterity were only natural men acting as the agents of Yehwah for a time, that time had a start date and an end date and only for the physical nation of Israel.
Eph 2:19 Then, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and of the household of God,
Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being chief corner- stone ,
I would almost bet that there were, in the 1st century, full proselytes in the nation of Israel, who rejected the Messiah and were cut off from the commonwealth of Israel, the household of God, just as there were natural born Israelites who were cut off.

How could Abraham be a citizen and proselyte of the commonwealth of Israel before "Israel/jacob" was even born?

Yes, it is an outward sign. So why not the adult and just the 8 day son? Abraham was an adult and Ishmael was 13.
And Moses' Law says the full proselyte must be circumcised.

That was an exceptional circumstance. Circumcision had to start with adults since Abraham could not circumcise himself at 8 days old. The command is clear that all other males born in Israel also had to be circumcised on day 8.

They would be things that are rituals that are not about loving your neighbor as yourself. Dietary laws don't effect me unless I offend someone else, to offend is not showing love for them as I would show love for myself.

If you give someone unclean flesh to eat like rat, dog, pig, etc., you gave them forbidden food and have caused them to sin. That is not love.

If I were to wear the tzitzit I would think that might offend a person who believes they are under the old covenant law, to them I would appear to be a hypocrite. Even though I find the tzitzit very appealing for some reason, it stirs my heart.

You would definitely be a hypocrite if you wore them and taught against the law at the same time. They are a visual reminder to keep Yahweh's law, not only for the wearer (me), but for the law abiding community who see them on me.

If we look at all the menstrual laws together, they may have had more than one purpose. I think mainly for cleanliness. They were rituals as well, seeing there were offerings attached.

Any man who has relations with a woman doing her cycle committed a great offense leading to being cut off from his people. There will be serious consequences for the New Covenant believer who does that as well unless they repent.

When you say 'forbidden relationships' and 'holiness laws' what are you referring to? Can you give me an example?

Forbidden relationships are found in Lev 18 & 20. Can we now have such relationships? If not, where is the NT command against them? Holiness laws are laws that lead to holy living such as the dietary laws (Lev 11:45) and the assorted laws in Lev 20.