Christ kept the Law of Moses, so....

It's hard to respond to this because you and I are reading these passages differently. But yes, the council would've agreed with Paul's message in Galatians 5 regarding fleshy circumcision because that's why James pronounced his instructions be sent to all new Gentile converts. Fleshy circumcision wasn't necessary because the true form of circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit.


Circumcision of the Heart Defined

Deuteronomy 10:12-17
12 And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul

13 To keep the commandments of the Lord, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

15 Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.

16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:


Circumcision of the heart is to fear the Almighty, walk in all His ways, love Him, and serve Him with all one's heart and soul and to keep His commandments...this is why flesh circumcision isn't necessary, because it's just an outward expression of the true circumcision that happens when someone loves the living God so much to want to serve him with everything they are.

Fleshy circumcision is going backward because, after the giving of the Holy Spirit, true circumcision (i.e. love & obedience) is now possible in fulfillment of the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:33.


Jeremiah 31:33 (partial)
I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts

Ezekiel 36:27
And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.


A spiritually circumcised person WANTS to obey the living God; wants to follow His commandments.

So the council said to new gentile converts, "don't worry about fleshy circumcision, but do this for now; avoid these sins..."

- pollution of idols

- fornication

- things strangled

- from blood

...because "Moses" (i.e., God's law delivered through Moses) is preached to them every sabbath day in the synagogues.

In other words, they'll eventually learn everything that is required for obedience in time, but for now, tell them to stay away from the four sins above, which would be a significant departure from their past lives as pagans.

Fleshy circumcision wasn't necessary because the true form of circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit.

What then do you conclude about the jots and tittles in the law that specifically command fleshly circumcision? You must either conclude that they are removed, contradicting the argument from Matthew 5:18, or that Christians are in no way under the law whatsoever, in agreement with Romans 6-8

Perhaps the main point of keeping some of the old ways was to avoid offending the Jewish neighbors (who where very picky about their kibbles and bits.)

"Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood."

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Strong's Greek: 235. ἀλλά (alla) -- otherwise, on the other hand, but (biblehub.com)

HELPS Word-studies
235 allá (typically a strong adversative conjunction) – but (but instead), nevertheless, on the contrary. 235 (allá), the neuter plural of 243 /állos ("other"), literally means "otherwise" or "on the other hand" (Abbott-Smith).

Basically "rather than". Not sure if this helps very much. But it is illustrative of the essentially "contrary/negative" verdict.

I take it therefore that verse 21 carries with it the notion that the gentiles were well aware of Jewish law as regards morality, decency, and a righteous pattern of life. So demanding of gentiles a strict to the letter ritual law-keeping was uncalled for given the circumstances.

I broke up your quote so that all of it can be read for my response (instead of being hidden).

----

1) Instead is indeed an adversative conjunction tied to "trouble them not". But trouble them not with what? With specifically fleshy circumcision. The statement wasn't "trouble them not with the law" it was "trouble them not with circumcision" as that as the issues being addressed.

2) Gentiles could not have been well aware of the Jewish Law because further up in the chapter in verse 1 it says certain men came down from Judea teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation, which first brought up the issue that they were unaware of previously. Paul championed the issue on behalf of the gentile converts.

Remember that this was the beginning of the church (i.e., "salvation has come to the Gentiles" - Rom 11:11). The gentiles were just now being grafted in. They weren't already in. They weren't old congregants in the synagogues who have been listening to the law for years and years.

3) So now if we look at the text for verse 21 like you've done in verse 20, giving it the same treatment that you gave verse 20, we read that

gar = for, indeed (a conjunction used to express cause, explanation, inference or continuation)

Trouble them not with circumcision but tell them to avoid [specific sins] because - as a statement of fact - The law is preached in the synagogue year after year each sabbath day. The notion being it was a staple of time spent in the synagogue and would continue to be.

4) I want to point out the elephant in the room. Eating food strangled and with blood are specific dietary laws. WHY COMMAND GENTILES TO ADHERE TO DIETARY LAWS AT ALL if (a) they didn't need to be followed and (b) to obey one law is to place oneself under all the law [as one can't be partial] and (c) doing so rejects the work of Christ?

Fleshy circumcision wasn't necessary because the true form of circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit.

What then do you conclude about the jots and tittles in the law that specifically command fleshly circumcision?

You must either conclude that they are removed, contradicting the argument from Matthew 5:18, or that Christians are in no way under the law whatsoever, in agreement with Romans 6-8

10) Who must obey all of the law?
A: Man

Deuteronomy 30:6~ The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love Him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

I conclude the same thing I've been concluding, Post. I'll put it in question form to try to drive the point home:

1) Who gave the law, man or God?
A: God

2) Who must obey all of the law?
A: Man

3) Who can amend the law, man or God?
A: God

4) Who can't amend the law, man or God?
A: Man

5) Has God amended His law?
A: Yes, several times

6) Does that involve the adding or taking away of potions of law?
A: Yes

7) When God does it, is it wrong?
A: No

8) When Man does it, is it wrong?
A: Yes

9) When God takes away something that was in the law, is the remaining law therefore "the whole law"?
A: Yes

10) Who must obey all of the law?
A: Man

-----

You're locking yourselves in a theological prison of error by not considering the operation of God's law in a similar nature to how other laws operate in any other government or kingdom (Romans 1:20). The one in charge gets to amend the rules, but the citizens must obey all the rules given. Whether there are more at one point or less at another point, it is still the "whole".

- In the beginning, there was one rule: do not eat of the forbidden tree = the whole law, every jot and tittle

- At Mt. Sinai, the commandments were given = the resulting law was the whole law, every jot and tittle

- After Israel couldn't stand to hear them, more ordinances were given = the resulting law was the whole law, every jot and tittle

- After Israel trespassed, works were given to rehearse remedy = resulting law was the whole law, every jot and tittle

- After Christ came to remedy sin, those works were removed = the resulting law was the whole law, every jot and tittle

- After the priesthood changed, those works were removed = the resulting law was the whole law, every jot and tittle

- Temple destroyed, those temple rules were removed = the resulting law was the whole law, every jot and tittle

- in fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:33, fleshy circumcision was removed = the resulting law was the whole law, every jot and tittle

-----

Christians don't get to say they are "in no way under the law whatsoever". This was Paul's point. All will be judged by the Law in the end according to Paul's gospel (Romans 2:12-16). Those completely outside of the law will die and those within it will be judged by it. And Gentiles who have a portion of the law in their hearts will be judged in their adherence to that portion as one is only responsible for what they know.

Gentiles who came to God from a pagan life started attending synagogue. The question arose as to whether they needed to be circumcised in the flesh. The council ruled that to be "no" because the law for circumcision is satisfied in the circumcision of the heart which is to love God and obey the commandment, which would continue to be taught to them every sabbath in the synagogue.

Has man kept or ever been able to obey the whole law/commandments?

No. Not even when there was only one.

“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.


But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3:10-12‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. and they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:


For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:5-6, 23-24, 28-29‬ ‭KJV‬‬

the gospel is Gods word

The context begins in verse 1

Acts 15:1
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Hi Magenta,

True. But that is not a reason to argue that they shouldn't try to be kept...but is the very reason why God promised to send His Spirit of Love so that we finally can, in fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:33. He also gave us gifts like grace and mercy and direct access to the throne to ask for help in time of need.

God's goal is to change what you've pointed out as fact so that we are eventually like His Son in areas of obedience.

Act 15:24
seeing we have heard that certain having gone forth from us did trouble you with words, subverting your souls, saying to be circumcised and to keep the law, to whom we did give no charge,

no man is justified by the law in the sight of God

The context begins in verse 1

Acts 15:1
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Can you put this portion in your own words for me, Pilgrimshope?

sure , if you obey what Moses wrote it’s not going to save or justify you because that’s not what the law is for

[...cut for space...]

there’s no justification before God if someone does their best to obey Moses' laws. In fact, at many points, you could obey Moses' word and it would make you break Jesus' word because they are contrary

to please God we have to accept Jesus and the everlasting gospel Moses isn’t Jesus and didn’t preach the everlasting gospel but he did often witness that Jesus would come later and speak Gods words of life

for instance Deuteronomy 18:15-19 confirmed by Jesus in John 12 and Peter in acts 3