Acts 15 proves that gentiles have never been under the law of Moses

[gotime]

God made this clear, and Paul reiterated it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

Acts 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Acts 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?
Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Notice how similar the words are the Stephen spoke in Acts 7, to the verse above in Deuteronomy?

That has always been the case.

God even told them that he gave them the land, NOT because of their goodness.

Deuteronomy 9:6 Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.

It has never been about people earning salvation through their own righteousness. It's always been about faith in God and seeking HIS ways which are always just, right and true.

There's so much more on this in the scriptures, as you know.

wonderful, notice also that Stephen says they resist the Spirit just as the fathers did. In other words the Fathers resisted the Spirit also.

As I see it the method of salvation is the same in the Old as the New. But because the Christ had not come yet they had laws that kept this truth before them until the Christ came.

We still do that but there are less now, for example baptism the act of baptism does not save us one bit, its the heart and faith behind the act. its the teaching behind the act. As I go down in the water my old man dies with Christ and as I come up cleansed by water/his blood I am a new creature and receive the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

If there is not death of the old nature and no new life filled with the Spirit then the act of baptism is meaningless.

Thus it is with many of the laws given in the Old Covenant.

ps Romans 6 talks about the meaning behind it.

 

[crossnote]

I had thought that might be the case, but the context seemed to indicate a wider outreach towards the gentiles. I can see, though, how that could also possibly apply to Hellenists. Wasn't the hellenist/judean conflict something that only the Judeans were concerned with. I can't imagine Jesus worrying about something like that.

So non-Jews weren't allowed in Jerusalem during festivals? Not familiar with that.

i think they were allowed in Jerusalem but not to take part in the Feasts.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

wonderful, notice also that Stephen says they resist the Spirit just as the fathers did. In other words the Fathers resisted the Spirit also.

I think Stephen meant their fathers, not the fathers.

 

[crossnote]

wonderful, notice also that Stephen says they resist the Spirit just as the fathers did. In other words the Fathers resisted the Spirit also.

As I see it the method of salvation is the same in the Old as the New. But because the Christ had not come yet they had laws that kept this truth before them until the Christ came.

We still do that but there are less now, for example baptism the act of baptism does not save us one bit, its the heart and faith behind the act. its the teaching behind the act. As I go down in the water my old man dies with Christ and as I come up cleansed by water/his blood I am a new creature and receive the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

If there is not death of the old nature and no new life filled with the Spirit then the act of baptism is meaningless.

Thus it is with many of the laws given in the Old Covenant.

ps Romans 6 talks about the meaning behind it.

or water baptism is a living example of Rom 6.

 

[gotime]

Just for clarification the sacrifice of animals did not save them, Yet God said if they obey they will have life. how?

It is written:

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Those who kept the first by faith, in other words did not rely on the physical acts they did but rather by faith looked forward as they did them to the coming messiah. They were by faith confirmed when Christ came and died for ours and their sins. It was never about the animals or the laws themselves it was about who they pointed to. The laws served as a constant reminder of the cost of sin and how God is merciful.

But once Jesus came we now have faith looking backward at what sin cost and the mercy of God in Jesus.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

i think they were allowed in Jerusalem but not to take part in the Feasts.

They couldn't eat the Passover, but they could participate otherwise, don't you think? Unleavened bread was a week-long festival.

 

[gotime]

I think Stephen meant their fathers, not the fathers.

How do you figure as the word fathers is used in here multiple times to refer to those who were before them. It is a common use for those who were in the desert etc. what reason do you have to limit this time to just their physical fathers?

 

[gotime]

or water baptism is a living example of Rom 6.

? not sure what you mean as I was talking about water baptism as a symbol.

 

[crossnote]

I had thought that might be the case, but the context seemed to indicate a wider outreach towards the gentiles. I can see, though, how that could also possibly apply to Hellenists. Wasn't the hellenist/judean conflict something that only the Judeans were concerned with? I can't imagine Jesus worrying about something like that.

So non-Jews weren't allowed in Jerusalem during festivals? Not familiar with that.

Err, looking quickly at a few commentators, the opinion seems divided, mostly leaning to ethnic Greek God fearers.

 

[crossnote]

? not sure what you mean as I was talking about water baptism as a symbol.

Yes, it is a figure , or presentation, of the reality of Rom 6.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

How do you figure as the word fathers is used in here multiple times to refer to those who were before them. It is a common use for those who were in the desert etc. what reason do you have to limit this time to just their physical fathers?

I wouldn't limit it to just their physical fathers, but to their corrupt seed line, even going back as far as the wilderness. Your capitalization of Father made me think that perhaps you were referring to the godly lineage (e.g, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.)

 

[gotime]

I wouldn't limit it to just their physical fathers, but to their corrupt seed line, even going back as far as the wilderness. Your capitalization of Father made me think that perhaps you were referring to the godly lineage (e.g, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.)

Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[gotime]

oh and no, sorry I did not mean the godly lineage.

 

[Shoshanah]

I have done a history lesson on this about the law and went back to how and what the Jews thought of the law, and they themselves divided the law up into categories: ceremonial, sacrificial, moral, and such...

Read about the Talmudic literature where the Jews divided the law into to sections !!!

I have a little also. I don't have much time for the Talmud. I take the Talmud as the law of man, not God. I bought a book years ago called "The Temple" written by Alfred Edersheim. I thought it would be describing the spiritual side of the temple (in parable form) in respect to believers in Christ as the temple. I was very disappointed, and I left the book alone for years until I had enough information to even begin to comprehend it. Even with that, it was a struggle to read and understand. Since that point I now have a better understanding of how the disciples felt in Acts 15:10. I have concluded that only a Jewish Rabbi would have been able to comprehend it all.

 

[Shoshanah]

But now circumcision is no longer required...
Ephesians 2:11-16 KJV
[11] Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; [12] That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: [13] But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. [14] For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us ; [15] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; [16] And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Only of the heart and not he flesh.

 

[JimmieD]

This will be a study demonstrating that Acts 15 proves gentiles have never been under the law of Moses. Please feel free to comment.

A simple observation of context, history, current reality proves it too.

 

[Least]

They couldn't eat the Passover, but they could participate otherwise, don't you think? Unleavened bread was a week-long festival.

There are verses that show that strangers could partake in Passover.

Exodus 12
[SUP]48 [/SUP]And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

 

[Least]

I think Stephen meant their fathers, not the fathers.

Acts Ch. 7, Stephen is making a direct association with early Israel in the wilderness.

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
Acts 7:39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

Considering the 40 years in the wilderness, as recorded in Exodus. That statement is tied directly to this.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

There are verses that show that strangers could partake in Passover.

Exodus 12
[SUP]48 [/SUP]And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Thanks for that verse.

If they were circumcised they were part of the covenant and part of Israel. Just not native born.

 

[Least]

But now circumcision is no longer required...
Ephesians 2:11-16 KJV
[11] Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; [12] That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: [13] But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. [14] For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us ; [15] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; [16] And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

This is really interesting, because scriptures show that circumcision was for a sign, not for salvation for either a Jew or Gentile, but faithfulness. In Romans Paul uses Abraham as an example.

Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Romans 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Romans 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

I believe that God has always required faith.