Is it your position that Christ is of no value to someone who becomes circumcised for any reason? So you think that Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US?
There is a clear distinction between speaking against circumcision for the purpose of becoming justified (which Paul did) and speaking against becoming circumcised for any reason (which Paul did not do, such as with Timothy), so there is no need to accuse me of spin. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if Paul spoke against circumcision for any reason, then he was a false prophet according to God and we should still become circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it, or if Paul only spoke against circumcision for incorrect purposes, then we should still become circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it, but either way we should obey what God has commanded. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that Paul has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded, though the reality is that Paul was a servant of God, so he shouldn't be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded.
In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ set us free from God's law, but that he gave himself to set us free from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20), and the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin.
There is a clear distinction between speaking against circumcision for the purpose of becoming justified (which Paul did) and speaking against becoming circumcised for any reason (which Paul did not do, such as with Timothy), so there is no need to accuse me of spin. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so if Paul spoke against circumcision for any reason, then he was a false prophet according to God and we should still become circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it, or if Paul only spoke against circumcision for incorrect purposes, then we should still become circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it, but either way we should obey what God has commanded. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that Paul has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded, though the reality is that Paul was a servant of God, so he shouldn't be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded.
In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ set us free from God's law, but that he gave himself to set us free from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20), and the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin.
This is the point Paul is making. It isn't a Jew who is one outwardly, but one who is one inwardly. The nation or kingdom of Israel was a physical kingdom. The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom. Following the law puts one in the physical kingdom. Being in Christ places one in the kingdom of God. No amount of physical endeavor in any form can take someone out of a physical kingdom and put them into a spiritual kingdom. That can only be accomplished by an act of God.
- 2
- 1
- Show all