The Law and the New Covenant

[iam1me]

Jesus lived and died under the Law; He recognized the authority of the Law; kept the Law; and taught the Law. But Jesus was the end of the Law,

Jesus fulfilled the Law - but he did not end them. Jesus explicitly makes clear that fulfilling the Law is not the same as abolishing it:

Matthew 5:17-20 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[iam1me]

I feel I am being talked down to. I am familiar with the quoted prophet, but I do not share your ascendant certainty, nor do I accept you as my teacher. Lets discuss this with civility and without arm twisting.

I don't see any other way reasonable way to read the scripture in question, but if you have an honest alternative interpretation I would be open to considering it.

Circumcision of the heart is probably quite rare. Nevertheless we should extend fellowship I think to all comers. This is a ragged conglomeration not a nation of acolytes. If somebody is fat, watches movies and loves cats too much we should not judge them.

Circumcision of the heart doesn't mean being perfect or an ascetic. It means that your heart is set on God, on his will, on doing what is good and right, on worshiping in truth, etc. This is foundational to the New Covenant. In fact, the New Covenant was brought about precisely because of this issue - the Old Covenant was not founded upon it, but upon the flesh. Thus they worshiped with their lips, but their hearts were devoted to other gods and pleasures.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or my wrath will flare up and burn like fire because of the evil you have done— burn with no one to quench it.

That is an assumption on your part I guess. You seem really certain, like if I disagree I must be wrong to disagree. I consider it to be a boast. No one can tame the tongue which James says is a restless evil filled with deadly poison. What is one to do? Talking about things online is difficult. I cant show anyone wisdom here.

While I am open to considering an alternative interpretation, the scriptures are pretty clear about when, where, and why circumcision was instantiated.

1 Corinthians 1:31Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

Properly understood by God or according to we humans? I am not a father in the faith, and I think neither can one be on the internet. Abraham could be a story, and as a non Jewish person I can say that, though as a christian not. Jews aren't supposed to, because each one is required to be an escaped slave from Egypt, even if they were born in New York. They equally believe they are descended from Abraham. The covenant of circumcision is Jewish 100% no matter how we may try to squeak it around them and say it was Abrahams first. Either we are Jewish and believe in Abraham, or Abraham is a story told by Jews along with Exodus and the whole enchilada. There is no introduction in Genesis, no preface but the Torah. What am I supposed to think that Jews are just extras on the stage and I the cast? No, to me that is impossible due to two thousand years of testimony.

Within Judaism and the scriptures, there is no question about when, where, and why circumcision was established - and it was well before God gave the Law to Moses or formed a Covenant with Israel. If you want to start questioning the entire Jewish and Christian faith, the legitimacy of the scriptures, etc. - those are entirely different debates. This is a Scriptural Debate, so you should have some confidence in your ability to reason from scripture.

Here is what I think: If we are grafted onto Israel then it behooves us to believe in Abraham, but only in an abstract sense can one shrive circumcision away from Moses, only in the bubble universe of Moses does Abraham have it first I think. Its Jewish. Galations makes the argument that its a covenant we can keep without being Jewish, but let me not kid myself that Abraham really comes before Moses. He comes with Moses and an Exodus from Egypt. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Let me take a different approach: why do you posit that the Law speaks of circumcision? For what reason is it done?

I argue that it is clearly due to the Covenant with Abraham, who is the forefather of Israel. However, I will consider a well-reasoned alternative foundation for circumcision in the Law.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Jesus died for all of mankind, that all might be saved. However, the scriptures also prophecy a Judgement for sin, which Christ is in charge of, and of the Second Death. So by what means are those who are saved differentiated from those that are condemned? It is their works.

Matthew 25:31-46 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
​

No one is asserting that it is the Law which brings salvation. It is through Christ that salvation is made possible - and this is a gift. However, the gift is only part of the equation (else there would be no judgement). Eternal Life is the reward for our own good works (Romans 2:6-11)



Please read the surrounding verses to understand what the New Covenant is (hint: I quoted it in the OP).

Yeah but now we are bordering on what Catholicism and Protestantism say about salvation. A Catholic would agree with what you say, and that sacraments are part of the 'works' that you are mentioning. I am a Protestant, so I do not believe in sacraments.

And with regards to Judgement there are two that is mentioned in the Bible: one with regards to salvation, and one with regards to rewards.

The Great White Throne Judgement:
'And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. ' Revelation 20:12-15

Note that all our 'deeds' are recorded in God's book. And no matter how many good deeds we may do, it can never overwrite the sins which we have committed. We know that it is through Jesus' blood that our sins have been 'erased' from this book.

'" for I will be merciful to their iniquities , and I will remember their sins no more ." ' Hebrews 8:12

So when I see deeds here, I see it as those whose sinful deeds have been erased, and those who chose to reject Christ, and so their sinful deeds will be counted against them.

The Judgement seat of Christ:
There is also the judgment after salvation, where each of us will be rewarded for our deeds on Earth
'For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. ' 2 Corinthians 5:10

'Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. ' 1 Corinthians 3:12-15

From what I read, it seems the Judgement seat of Christ is only meant for believers. Those who have done good deeds will be rewarded, whereas the bad deeds will be counted against us, but we ourselves will still be saved. So I believe deeds do play a role in the afterlife, and that we will be rewarded for them, but i do not believe that it counts towards salvation per se. This is only done through the blood of the Lamb.

'But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. ' Titus 3:4-7

 

[iam1me]

​

On the contrary, it means exactly that ─ unless you think words attributed to Paul overrule words attributed to Jesus. Male circumcision is the sign of Yahweh's covenant with [his] chosen people, and everything Jewish I find on the net tells me male circumcision is correctly called part of the Law ─ no dot, staple or coffee stain of which is to be altered, as Jesus, a circumcised Jew himself, says in your quote.

If you think that circumcision in the Law isn't based upon the Covenant with Abraham, then please show an alternative basis for it in the scriptures when spoken of in the Law.

Understanding why the Law commands what it does is the basis for following the Spirit of the Law, vs the letter thereof.

 

[iam1me]

This is only to tell the Jews that the New Covenant no longer contains a set of written Law such as the Mosaic Law.

The term "obsolete" by no means says that the Mosaic covenant and Law will go away. It is spoken from the perspective that the old Jewish covenant no long has the ability to save. It echoes the saying that the Law and Prophets were proclaimed until John the Baptist. After that point, only the Good News shall be preached as only the New Covenant will possess the power of salvation.

On the other hand, the Mosaic covenant itself won't go away from a legal/lawful perspective. The New Covenant is somehow an "added upon" covenant which doesn't go with you when you are born. You need to choose it when you are an adult. Before that you are subject to an older covenant and will be judged by that old covenant if the New Covenant is not chosen. That is if the New Covenant is not chosen then the Jews will be judged in accordance to the Mosaic covenant while gentles will be judged by an even older covenant (possibly the one brought by Noah).

The reason that the Law is written on our hearts and minds is so that we may obey it - not so that we may ignore it!

Deuteronomy 30:14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

 

[iam1me]

Yeah but now we are bordering on what Catholicism and Protestantism say about salvation. A Catholic would agree with what you say, and that sacraments are part of the 'works' that you are mentioning. I am a Protestant, so I do not believe in sacraments.

I'm generically a Protestant as well. For me this is more a rejection of various Catholic and Orthodox errors rather than a limitation in how I approach these issues. The truth should take priority - rather than denominational affiliation.

I would also tend to agree that the sacraments do not qualify as the works in question. And I would say that there isn't a lot of mystery to what works are expected of us - the scriptures are fairly clear I think.

Note that all our 'deeds' are recorded in God's book. And no matter how many good deeds we may do, it can never overwrite the sins which we have committed. We know that it is through Jesus' blood that our sins have been 'erased' from this book.

'" for I will be merciful to their iniquities , and I will remember their sins no more ." ' Hebrews 8:12

So when I see deeds here, I see it as those whose sinful deeds have been erased, and those who chose to reject Christ, and so their sinful deeds will be counted against them.

Agreed - our good deeds are not what brings forgiveness - this is the gift of God through Christ.

The Judgement seat of Christ:
There is also the judgment after salvation, where each of us will be rewarded for our deeds on Earth
'For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. ' 2 Corinthians 5:10

'Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. ' 1 Corinthians 3:12-15

From what I read, it seems the Judgement seat of Christ is only meant for believers. Those who have done good deeds will be rewarded, whereas the bad deeds will be counted against us, but we ourselves will still be saved. So I believe deeds do play a role in the afterlife, and that we will be rewarded for them, but i do not believe that it counts towards salvation per se. This is only done through the blood of the Lamb.

I don't see where you are getting this. When the scriptures talk of recompense for our deeds - good or bad - the recompense for the bad is death. Scripture is very consistent in teaching that those who do good will receive eternal life, while those who do bad will not - they will be punished and destroyed. Do you think non-believers are free from the Judgement and get a free pass?

 

[Thinking Homer]

I don't see where you are getting this. When the scriptures talk of recompense for our deeds - good or bad - the recompense for the bad is death. Scripture is very consistent in teaching that those who do good will receive eternal life, while those who do bad will not - they will be punished and destroyed. Do you think non-believers are free from the Judgement and get a free pass?

Like I said, the Judgement seat of Christ is where He will distribute rewards according to our deeds. Only believers are involved in this 'ceremony'. The White Throne is where eternal heaven or condemnation is decided.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Jesus didn't introduce a new law here - he is very clearly speaking of the Jewish Law. He is saying he will fulfill it and the prophets (or do you posit that he introduced new prophets here too?)

That's right, Jesus didn't introduce a new law.
What Jesus did was introduce to the people, the law of the kingdom of heaven.

The law of the kingdom of heaven are those Verse's from Matthew 5:1-16, those being the law of the kingdom of heaven.

Had you notice what Jesus said in
Verse 19--"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments"

What least commandments, The ones Jesus just gave back in Verse's 3-16.
Those being the law of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[iam1me]

Like I said, the Judgement seat of Christ is where He will distribute rewards according to our deeds. Only believers are involved in this 'ceremony'. The White Throne is where eternal heaven or condemnation is decided.

And what makes you think that the "Judgement Seat" is distinct from the "White Throne" in Revelations 20? When the scritpure speaks of judgement - it speaks of two groups, of those who will be rewarded with eternal life, and those who will be condemned. This second group is obviously not true believers who follow the Lord - and there is nothing in the text to suggest a separate judging of false Christians from non-believers that will be condemned. There's no separate ceremony for believers presented in scripture that I can see.

 

[iam1me]

That's right, Jesus didn't introduce a new law.
What Jesus did was introduce to the people, the law of the kingdom of heaven.

The law of the kingdom of heaven are those Verse's from Matthew 5:1-16, those being the law of the kingdom of heaven.

Had you notice what Jesus said in
Verse 19--"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments"

What least commandments, The ones Jesus just gave back in Verse's 3-16.
Those being the law of the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:1-16 is not a new law - and no one calls it the "Law of the Kingdom of Heaven."

 

[blü 2]

If you think that circumcision in the Law isn't based upon the Covenant with Abraham, then please show an alternative basis for it in the scriptures when spoken of in the Law.

Of course it's based on Yahweh's covenant in the Tanakh. It's part of the Law that, Jesus is quoted as saying, will not be changed even in the tiniest particular until the Kingdom is established, which manifestly as at this date it isn't.

Understanding why the Law commands what it does is the basis for following the Spirit of the Law, vs the letter thereof.

It says what it says, namely that the symbol of God's covenant is male circumcision full stop and no exceptions. It doesn't come from a time when 'the spirit as against the letter' was a current notion. Nor do the words attributed to Jesus suggest that there are exceptions, even those based on the convenience of Paul's Sales Department. Why should there be? The gospels, uncontradicted by Paul, make it perfectly clear that Jesus was a circumcised Jew. If it's good enough for Jesus ...

 

[Faithofchristian]

Matthew 5:1-16 is not a new law - and no one calls it the "Law of the Kingdom of Heaven."

First no one said it's a new law.
There is no where in Matthew 5:1-19, that Jesus said anything about the
10 Commandment law.
So where do people get the
10 Commandment law out of
Matthew 5:1-19.
Other than by man's teachings.

Seeing Jesus said nothing about the
10 Commandment law in Matthew 5:1-16.
So what law, do you suppose Jesus is referring to in Matthew 5:17-19 ?

Note Verse 19--"whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments"

What least commandments, The ones that Jesus just gave back in Verse's 1-16.
Which are the law of the kingdom of heaven.

And what makes you think that the "Judgement Seat" is distinct from the "White Throne" in Revelations 20? When the scritpure speaks of judgement - it speaks of two groups, of those who will be rewarded with eternal life, and those who will be condemned. This second group is obviously not true believers who follow the Lord - and there is nothing in the text to suggest a separate judging of false Christians from non-believers that will be condemned. There's no separate ceremony for believers presented in scripture that I can see.

There are two judgement's that takes place.

The first judgement is the judgement seat of Christ Jesus. That Christ Jesus will judge every man according to what they have done in the flesh body.


The second Judgement is the Great White Throne Judgement of God's. The Great White Throne Judgement, will determine who makes into the kingdom of God.
And who doesn't.

 

[74x12]

Jesus didn't introduce a new law here - he is very clearly speaking of the Jewish Law. He is saying he will fulfill it and the prophets (or do you posit that he introduced new prophets here too?)

Okay. So if someone touches a snail are they still unclean until evening? Is that written on their heart; that they are physically unclean until the evening for touching a snail or lizard?

The new Testament Law is spiritual worship (John 4:23) and not the physical ritualistic worship of the Mosaic Law. Whoever is born again in Christ Jesus is a new creature. Old things are passed away. All things are become new. They are from then on supposed to be true worshipers who worship God in Spirit and in truth.

The old Testament Law is ritualistic worship. The new Testament Law gives Spiritual and true worship through the holy Spirit. The people in the old Testament did not generally have the holy Spirit; unless they were prophets. Now we are all supposed to be filled with the holy Spirit like the prophets were. So we can worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.

So you're wanting people to return to the flesh who have been in the Spirit. The Law of Moses was made for those still in the flesh. But whoever is in the Spirit is free; so they can worship God. Their freedom is not given to them for on occasion of the flesh. That is it's not given so they can fulfill the lusts of the flesh. But it's given so they can more freely worship God and do good things.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Circumcision of the heart doesn't mean being perfect or an ascetic. It means that your heart is set on God, on his will, on doing what is good and right, on worshiping in truth, etc. This is foundational to the New Covenant. In fact, the New Covenant was brought about precisely because of this issue - the Old Covenant was not founded upon it, but upon the flesh. Thus they worshiped with their lips, but their hearts were devoted to other gods and pleasures.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, circumcise your hearts, you people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, or my wrath will flare up and burn like fire because of the evil you have done— burn with no one to quench it.

It seems strange to me to claim there is an old or expired covenant and also that the old covenant was founded on flesh while simultaneously maintaining that a new covenant depends upon the death of the messiah. If the new covenant is in Jesus flesh it is also physical unless we think he has had no flesh. Also Paul or any other apostle may call old what they like, but they cannot expunge any covenant by saying so. He may make his argument in Galations, but we should still check his assumptions and our own. The Torah seems to be as much about the heart as the new covenant in jesus blood. The psalms sing about it all the time - "cleanse my heart", "delight in the Lord and he will...heart", and how often do we hear Christians praying and singing the same things? All the time! Therefore I do not think any covenant with the LORD is antiquated. Also if a prophet can declare a covenant antiquated another can declare it renewed, as Micah does. Ezekiel's New Covenant is none other than Micah's Renewal. They are the same things I ponder and that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

While I am open to considering an alternative interpretation, the scriptures are pretty clear about when, where, and why circumcision was instantiated.

1 Corinthians 1:31Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

That does not sound like being open to alternative interpretation. It sounds more like trying to nail everything down to only one interpretation.

Within Judaism and the scriptures, there is no question about when, where, and why circumcision was established - and it was well before God gave the Law to Moses or formed a Covenant with Israel. If you want to start questioning the entire Jewish and Christian faith, the legitimacy of the scriptures, etc. - those are entirely different debates. This is a Scriptural Debate, so you should have some confidence in your ability to reason from scripture.

Or perhaps the freedom to reason from scripture that we ought to rely upon multiple interpretations of scripture plus a more flexible range of scripture. Script means writing, after all. Anything written could be scripture depending upon what can be considered inspired.

Let me take a different approach: why do you posit that the Law speaks of circumcision? For what reason is it done?

I argue that it is clearly due to the Covenant with Abraham, who is the forefather of Israel. However, I will consider a well-reasoned alternative foundation for circumcision in th...

Torah takes precedence over midrash, and as gentiles there is much information we have no access to. Therefore it seems that circumcision begins with the Torah. Anyway if one follows the reasoning of Galations then the promise to Abraham comes with circumcision, implying that all Christians must be circumcised yet Paul is against that. Somewhere the argument falls short that we are under some separate covenant than the supposedly old one. No, it must be that the same covenant is renewed and we call it new; but its only new to us. The teaching of heart circumcision was always central in the Torah, nothing new.

 

[iam1me]

Of course it's based on Yahweh's covenant in the Tanakh. It's part of the Law that, Jesus is quoted as saying, will not be changed even in the tiniest particular until the Kingdom is established, which manifestly as at this date it isn't.
It says what it says, namely that the symbol of God's covenant is male circumcision full stop and no exceptions. It doesn't come from a time when 'the spirit as against the letter' was a current notion. Nor do the words attributed to Jesus suggest that there are exceptions, even those based on the convenience of Paul's Sales Department. Why should there be? The gospels, uncontradicted by Paul, make it perfectly clear that Jesus was a circumcised Jew. If it's good enough for Jesus ...

You are simply incorrect here: the Covenant with Israel is distinct from the Covenant with Abraham. Circumcision is the symbol of God's Covenant with Abraham (Gen 17), not the one with Israel. The Law is the symbol of God's Covenant with Israel (Exodus 20). These are two distinct covenants made several generations apart. Understanding this is key to understanding why Paul - and ultimately the rest of the early church - decided that circumcision was not required for Gentiles, but only for Jews.

 

[iam1me]

First no one said it's a new law.
There is no where in Matthew 5:1-19, that Jesus said anything about the
10 Commandment law.
So where do people get the
10 Commandment law out of
Matthew 5:1-19.
Other than by man's teachings.

Seeing Jesus said nothing about the
10 Commandment law in Matthew 5:1-16.
So what law, do you suppose Jesus is referring to in Matthew 5:17-19 ?

Note Verse 19--"whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments"

What least commandments, The ones that Jesus just gave back in Verse's 1-16.
Which are the law of the kingdom of heaven.

No one said anything about the 10 commandments (the Law is much bigger than just the 10). It is you who is insisting that Matthew 5:1-16 is some law to which we should restrict the understanding of Matthew 5:17-19 - but Matthew 5:1-16 is NOT a list of commandments :doh: He isn't presenting that as a new law, or even a subset of the Law to which he is restricting his speech in latter verses. You are inventing something not to be found in the text in order to dismiss what the text says.

There are two judgement's that takes place.

The first judgement is the judgement seat of Christ Jesus. That Christ Jesus will judge every man according to what they have done in the flesh body.


The second Judgement is the Great White Throne Judgement of God's. The Great White Throne Judgement, will determine who makes into the kingdom of God.
And who doesn't.

Scripture only speaks of one Judgement, though it speaks of it many different times.

 

[iam1me]

Okay. So if someone touches a snail are they still unclean until evening? Is that written on their heart; that they are physically unclean until the evening for touching a snail or lizard?

First off, uncleanliness is not the same thing as sin (a common mistake). Women are unclean from their period, from giving birth, people are unclean from having sex, etc. Secondly, Christ has made clean that which was unclean.

Acts 10:13-15 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” 14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Romans 14:14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.​

The new Testament Law is spiritual worship (John 4:23) and not the physical ritualistic worship of the Mosaic Law. Whoever is born again in Christ Jesus is a new creature. Old things are passed away. All things are become new. They are from then on supposed to be true worshipers who worship God in Spirit and in truth.

The old Testament Law is ritualistic worship. The new Testament Law gives Spiritual and true worship through the holy Spirit. The people in the old Testament did not generally have the holy Spirit; unless they were prophets. Now we are all supposed to be filled with the holy Spirit like the prophets were. So we can worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.

So you're wanting people to return to the flesh who have been in the Spirit. The Law of Moses was made for those still in the flesh. But whoever is in the Spirit is free; so they can worship God. Their freedom is not given to them for on occasion of the flesh. That is it's not given so they can fulfill the lusts of the flesh. But it's given so they can more freely worship God and do good things.

The Law is spiritual (Romans 7:14) and we are constantly called to follow the Spirit of the Law. This doesn't require a different Law - this requires approaching God's Law with understanding and with your heart in the right place. This is why the New Covenant is for God to write his Law on our hearts and minds. This is the basis upon which we are said to be His people, and He our God.

 

[iam1me]

It seems strange to me to claim there is an old or expired covenant and also that the old covenant was founded on flesh while simultaneously maintaining that a new covenant depends upon the death of the messiah. If the new covenant is in Jesus flesh it is also physical unless we think he has had no flesh. Also Paul or any other apostle may call old what they like, but they cannot expunge any covenant by saying so. He may make his argument in Galations, but we should still check his assumptions and our own. The Torah seems to be as much about the heart as the new covenant in jesus blood. The psalms sing about it all the time - "cleanse my heart", "delight in the Lord and he will...heart", and how often do we hear Christians praying and singing the same things? All the time! Therefore I do not think any covenant with the LORD is antiquated. Also if a prophet can declare a covenant antiquated another can declare it renewed, as Micah does. Ezekiel's New Covenant is none other than Micah's Renewal. They are the same things I ponder and that there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

The Old Covenant was based upon the flesh in the sense that it was hereditary in nature. One was born into Jewish household and circumcised (if a boy) and that made you Jewish - without your knowledge or consent. Not to say there were no exceptions (outsiders could choose to enter into the Covenant if they desired) but this is the primary nature of the Covenant. After all, it is via Israel that Abraham's Covenant is fulfilled - in which God promised to make his descendants as numerous as the stars.

The New Covenant is established through Christ's sacrifice - but one is not put under the New Covenant via the birth lottery. It is something you must choose for yourself, a matter of the heart - as you correctly say. This is why Christ taught that we must be born again.

John 1:12-13 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.​

That does not sound like being open to alternative interpretation. It sounds more like trying to nail everything down to only one interpretation.

Being open to alternative interpretations and accepting all interpretations as equal are two very different things. All things must be tested - and those things which have stood the test should obviously hold more weight than those which haven't even been presented.

Or perhaps the freedom to reason from scripture that we ought to rely upon multiple interpretations of scripture plus a more flexible range of scripture. Script means writing, after all. Anything written could be scripture depending upon what can be considered inspired.

Torah takes precedence over midrash, and as gentiles there is much information we have no access to. Therefore it seems that circumcision begins with the Torah. Anyway if one follows the reasoning of Galations then the promise to Abraham comes with circumcision, implying that all Christians must be circumcised yet Paul is against that. Somewhere the argument falls short that we are under some separate covenant than the supposedly old one. No, it must be that the same covenant is renewed and we call it new; but its only new to us. The teaching of heart circumcision was always central in the Torah, nothing new.

All interpretations are not equal. There is truth taught in the scriptures, its not some painting that you are free to interpret in any fashion you wish.

 

[blü 2]

You are simply incorrect here: the Covenant with Israel is distinct from the Covenant with Abraham. Circumcision is the symbol of God's Covenant with Abraham (Gen 17), not the one with Israel. The Law is the symbol of God's Covenant with Israel (Exodus 20). These are two distinct covenants made several generations apart. Understanding this is key to understanding why Paul - and ultimately the rest of the early church - decided that circumcision was not required for Gentiles, but only for Jews.

Exodus 20 says nothing that suggests the covenant with Abraham is only one of two covenants, and a scan of Jewish views on the net doesn't even refer to such a distinction. It appears there's no statement in the Tanakh that supports your claim ─ please correct me if that's wrong.

Moreover, even were that the case, the covenant with Abraham is unambiguously part of the Law, and the NT attributes to Jesus in direct speech the declaration that nothing, not the slightest part, of the Law will be altered before the Kingdom is established.

It's true that Paul succeeded in persuading the Christian church not to require circumcision from those not born Jews. But as I asked you before, in the NT do words attributed to Paul overrule words attributed to Jesus or not?

 

[iam1me]

Exodus 20 says nothing that suggests the covenant with Abraham is only one of two covenants, and a scan of Jewish views on the net doesn't even refer to such a distinction. It appears there's no statement in the Tanakh that supports your claim ─ please correct me if that's wrong.

Moreover, even were that the case, the covenant with Abraham is unambiguously part of the Law, and the NT attributes to Jesus in direct speech the declaration that nothing, not the slightest part, of the Law will be altered before the Kingdom is established.

It's true that Paul succeeded in persuading the Christian church not to require circumcision from those not born Jews. But as I asked you before, in the NT do words attributed to Paul overrule words attributed to Jesus or not?

The scriptures are quite clear that these are two distinct covenants. He forms a Covenant with Abraham at point X and then forms a new covenant with Israel at point Y based upon the Law (not circumcision). They had circumcision because of the earlier covenant. This isn't complicated - it's just a basic chronology of events.

Only once you understand the basis for circumcision can you speak of its applicability.

Also, it wouldn't be important for a person of Jewish descent to make a distinction in their studies, since both covenants apply to them anyways. It only became a question in the New Covenant due to Gentiles.