Acts 15 & 16 Question.... - NCCG.ORG Ning Network Archive 2008-10

Reply by Mats Rydin on May 17, 2009 at 12:42am

Shalom brother,

Thanks for Your honestly questions.I´m dealing a bit with Your second question. I´m truly convinced that there are things we don´t understand and will not. I´m not a theologian but I´v been thinking a lot of the arised questions. The passages doesn´t tells us about the circumstances when Paul circumsised Timothy rather then because of the Jews in Iconium and Lystra, It sais that they knew that his father was a greek or an armenean according to the HRV-translation. My question is what was it with the jews in Lystra and Iconium? The jews who stoned Shaul, were hostiled and incited the people against him were from those places. Yes, the question is unanswered. Did Shaul circumsised Timothy because he was afraid of them and wanted please them or was it because of other reasons. Yes, the great apostle Shaul had weaknesses that both You and I have. I´m sorry I can´t answer Your question. But I´ll say that there is an answer. Maybe the answer is in the Acts. 15:21 "For Moshe, from the first generations, had proclaimers in every city in the synagogues, who read him on every sabbath"

Reply by Lev/Christopher on May 17, 2009 at 1:00am

In the light of what Paul/Sha'ul forcefully said elsewhere about circumcision, I can only conclude that he considered this the only way to reach the Jews when he had Timothy circumcised. If we are to believe that Saul was consistent (and not hypocritical - I think we are duty-bound to think the best of him, as of all people), I can only assume that he attributed no religious significance to the circumcision - it was just an exigency to enable the further propagation of the Gospel amongst his people.

Perhaps some of my materials on circumcision will help.

Reply by Lahry Sibley on May 17, 2009 at 7:29am

Thank you both for your responses. I appreciate your comments. Some of my thoughts are that throughout the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation, we are continually confronted with "flawed" man. Shaul was certainly no exception, and admitted so. He himself said he was cheif among sinners and least among Apostles.

I think this text also causes us to be very guarded at how powerful the religious spirit can be, and how much pressure can be applied by them.

We also know that Paul loved his own people beyond measure. Even he being the "Apostle to the Gentiles", he loved Israel, as evidenced in Romans 11, 2 Cor 3,4.

Men and women in the USA who are paid employees of the Incorporated Church often are put upon as Paul was, especially if the person has a prophetic anointing. It takes much courage to be a prophet of God. It is quite ironic that many times God calls weak people to speak His truth in love.

Many things to ponder and meditate upon. I appreciate the depth of knowlege available here and I value your input. May Elohim richly bless your lives today. I look forward in love to much rich fellowship.

Shalom,

Lahry

Reply by Lev/Christopher on May 19, 2009 at 6:43am

Physical circumcision has never, at any time, been either a meas of conversion or salvation - it was, more often than not, administered to 8 day-old newborns as a sign of the (old/first) covenant. Obviously 8 day old infants could not be 'converted' or 'saved' by any. It belonged to the covenant administered at Sinai at the first Shavu'ot (Pentecost). The sign of the second (or new) Shavu'ot is baptism in the Ruach haQodesh which followed the sign of baptism represented by Yom haBikkurim and the crossing of Yam Suph/Sea of Reeds (Red Sea). Sha'ul/Paul made it perfectly clear that physical B'rit Millah / Circumcision was of no value whatsoever in the B'rit Chadashah /New Covenant and his instruction was specific and unambiguous: if, at conversion to Messiah, you are circumcised, remain circumcised - if you are not, remain uncircumcised. And advise all those who insist on circumcision to go and get castrated for all the use physical circumcision will do them.

Accordingly the position of this ministry is that physical circumcision has no value spiritually any more.

John Bernal said:

Circumcision has not been abolished, it is simply not the means of conversion or salvation, in accordance with the Torah I might add. The "Judaizers" were using circumcision as a means of Salvation, forgetting the principle concerning the circumcision of the Heart, which is mentioned moreso in the Tenakh' than that of the flesh.

Essentially, if one should feel a conviction towards circumcision, they should follow that conviction. But as with all other aspects concerning Torah, the work thereof is not the means of Salvation. This is to be considered when looking in the reading from Acts 15. You had only mentioned the giving of the Letter with its prescriptions vss23-29, and did not include the reasoning for only these few things as found in vss 19-22:

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols; even these: sexual immorality, and that being strangled, and the blood.
21 For from ancient generations Mosheh has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."
...etc

by making mention of Mosheh being read every Sabbath, a reason is conveyed as to why the directives are so few. Because they will hear the rest of Torah being taught, and as such follow the teachings as they are taught. This also shows us that the early believers, even the Gentiles, went to the Synagogues.

Also, the most important thing for them to have abstained from is presented to them as the primary. Things pertaining to Idolatry. These were pagan idol worshippers. The things given to abstain from were pertaining to the practices of their former idolatries.