Nazarene Space

1 Corinthians 7 - Remain where you were called.

What are everyone's thoughts on Paul's statement in this passage below? He appears to be saying that Gentiles should remain in their initial non-Torah observing status if they come to redemption in the Messiah during which. Contrastingly, he says that Jews should remain observing Torah when they are called to Yeshua as Shomrei Torah. What are your thoughts on his words?

Lamsa's Translation
1 Corinthians 7:
17 ¶ But every man, according as the Lord has distributed to him, and every man, as God has called him, so let him walk. And this I command also for all the churches.
18 If a man was circumcised when he was called, let him not adhere to the party of uncircumcision. And if he was uncircumcised, when he was called, let him not be circumcised.
19 For circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the Lord’s commandments is everything.
20 Let every man remain in the station of life in which he is called.
21 If you were a slave when you were called, do not feel concerned about it; but even though you can be made free, choose rather to serve.
22 For he who is called by our Lord, being a slave, is God’s free man; likewise he who is called, being a freeman is also Christ’s servant.
23 You have been bought with a price; you must not therefore become slaves of men.

Views: 365

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

He is saying Abraham (and Ishmael and all of Abraham's house) would have been excluded from circumcision.

Also Joshua 5:2-12 tells us that adults were circumcised upon entry to the promised land.

Timothy was an adult when he was circumcised in Acts 16:3.

And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that
soul shall be cut off from his people: he has broken My covenant.

Gen. 17:14

Sounds like something an adult is accountable for in his adulthood... hardly fair if her had to make that decision and have it done when he was 8 days old or not at all.

Nobody is prohibited from being circumcised, although the command only applies to the 8-day old, as you can plainly read in any Torah. Like I said, read the story of the Shechemites. But moreover, this is not about circumcision, its about keeping the Law. Paul plainly does not consider circumcision a commandment binding upon adults, and not one place in the Torah will you find Paul's interpretation actually contradicted.


I noticed nobody commented upon what I said about David.... So even if Paul did change the Torah, would it be more of a problem than when David did, and Ezra upheld David's decision ?
This is not my primary argument, as I don't believe Paul actually changed anything.


mikha El said:

Well then, your position doesn't hold water then does it? Abraham was past the 8th day and didn't require circumcision according to your theory. (Excluded from the Assembly of Israel of course.) 

So you think these were RECREATIONAL circumcisions?

I can think of a lot better ways to have fun....

Solomon Avar said:

Nobody is prohibited from being circumcised, although the command only applies to the 8-day old, as you can plainly read in any Torah. Like I said, read the story of the Shechemites. But moreover, this is not about circumcision, its about keeping the Law. Paul plainly does not consider circumcision a commandment binding upon adults, and not one place in the Torah will you find Paul's interpretation contradicted.

I noticed nobody commented upon what I said about David....


mikha El said:

Well then, your position doesn't hold water then does it? Abraham was past the 8th day and didn't require circumcision according to your theory. (Excluded from the Assembly of Israel of course.) 

Perhaps they spend five years in training.

Solomon Avar said:

Incidentally, David did change the Torah.

Numbers 8:

23Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 24"This is that which belongs to the Levites: from twenty-five years old and upward they shall go in to wait on the service in the work of the Tent of Meeting; 25and from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting on the work, and shall serve no more, 26but shall minister with their brothers in the Tent of Meeting, to perform the duty, and shall do no service. You shall do thus to the Levites concerning their duties."


1 Chron. 23:

24These were the descendants of Levi by their families—the heads of families as they were registered under their names and counted individually, that is, the workers twenty years old or more who served in the temple of the Lord. 25For David had said, “Since the Lord, the God of Israel, has granted rest to his people and has come to dwell in Jerusalem forever, 26the Levites no longer need to carry the tabernacle or any of the articles used in its service.” 27According to the last instructions of David, the Levites were counted from those twenty years old or more.


Did he sin in this regard ?
Or could God possibly have inspired it ?

I don't think Paul changed the Torah, but it would not be without precedent...


"THEIR circumcisions are nothing."

If he wanted to say "your/their circumcision is nothing", then he wouldn't follow it by saying "uncircumcision is nothing."


Solomon Avar said:

He didn't say "your/their circumcision", he just says "circumcision".

I don't believe he's changing the Torah, I believe he's saying that circumcision is not a commandment (for adults), as is evident from the text itself, and in harmony with the Torah, which commands 8-day old children (not adults) to be circumcised. Confer with the story of the Shechemites. But this is not about circumcision.

19 "For circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the Lord’s commandments is everything."

The shoemaker should stay a shoemaker, but the sinner should not stay a sinner. This is the point.

James Trimm said:

Yes the context of this quote is that Paul is addressing a group of apostates and telling them that THEIR circumcisions are nothing.

They were as "recreational" as the free will offerings described in the law. The pious would make these offerings now and then, while those who knew of "better ways to have fun" would not....
 
Anyway, since you  refuse to learn from the story of the Shechemites, and consult the scriptures, then there's nothing I can do for you.

As for your speculation on the priests, it changes nothing. Even if you were right it wouldn't change anything in your favor. You should read all of Chron. 23 to understand why this is the case.

"For circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the Lord’s commandments is everything."

Adult male Circumcision is clearly not counted as one of the Lord's commandments, any more than female circumcision.


James Trimm said:

So you think these were RECREATIONAL circumcisions?

I can think of a lot better ways to have fun....

Solomon Avar said:

Nobody is prohibited from being circumcised, although the command only applies to the 8-day old, as you can plainly read in any Torah. Like I said, read the story of the Shechemites. But moreover, this is not about circumcision, its about keeping the Law. Paul plainly does not consider circumcision a commandment binding upon adults, and not one place in the Torah will you find Paul's interpretation contradicted.

I noticed nobody commented upon what I said about David....


mikha El said:

Well then, your position doesn't hold water then does it? Abraham was past the 8th day and didn't require circumcision according to your theory. (Excluded from the Assembly of Israel of course.) 

BTW David did not change anything, he only counted them.  This COULD also be a frank record of the Temple being mismanaged by the High Priest of the time. 

James Trimm said:

Perhaps they spend five years in training.

Solomon Avar said:

Incidentally, David did change the Torah.

Numbers 8:

23Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 24"This is that which belongs to the Levites: from twenty-five years old and upward they shall go in to wait on the service in the work of the Tent of Meeting; 25and from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting on the work, and shall serve no more, 26but shall minister with their brothers in the Tent of Meeting, to perform the duty, and shall do no service. You shall do thus to the Levites concerning their duties."


1 Chron. 23:

24These were the descendants of Levi by their families—the heads of families as they were registered under their names and counted individually, that is, the workers twenty years old or more who served in the temple of the Lord. 25For David had said, “Since the Lord, the God of Israel, has granted rest to his people and has come to dwell in Jerusalem forever, 26the Levites no longer need to carry the tabernacle or any of the articles used in its service.” 27According to the last instructions of David, the Levites were counted from those twenty years old or more.


Did he sin in this regard ?
Or could God possibly have inspired it ?

I don't think Paul changed the Torah, but it would not be without precedent...


"THEIR circumcisions are nothing."

If he wanted to say "your/their circumcision is nothing", then he wouldn't follow it by saying "uncircumcision is nothing."


Solomon Avar said:

He didn't say "your/their circumcision", he just says "circumcision".

I don't believe he's changing the Torah, I believe he's saying that circumcision is not a commandment (for adults), as is evident from the text itself, and in harmony with the Torah, which commands 8-day old children (not adults) to be circumcised. Confer with the story of the Shechemites. But this is not about circumcision.

19 "For circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the Lord’s commandments is everything."

The shoemaker should stay a shoemaker, but the sinner should not stay a sinner. This is the point.

James Trimm said:

Yes the context of this quote is that Paul is addressing a group of apostates and telling them that THEIR circumcisions are nothing.

Good discussion so far.  Now to add to the topic, the Greek text here is often mistranslated. What Paul is actually said in Greek is "THE circumcision is nothing and THE uncircumcision is nothing ...." In other words, he was talking about two groups of people -- Jews and Gentiles. The Greek carries a definite article here before both nouns. Truly Paul wouldn't saying that the initial covenantal command of Abraham was "nothing". It's everything! But to those upon whom it is not obligated, the only thing that matters is keeping God's commandments given to them. To Jews one set of commands are given and to Gentiles another until they want to become partakers of the covenant. But it seems that Paul says he'd like them to stay where they were called. Otherwise, God would only be the God of the Jews rather than the God of the Gentiles also -- that is, if everyone became Jews instead of remaining as Gentiles. I think that Paul makes this understanding very clear in his arguments:

Romans 3:
29 [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

I don't think I can agree here.

 

The Torah is written to Israel as a sovereign, established nation. The expectation is that newborns brought into the nation would be circumcised on the 8th day. But what about the stranger that decides to be "grafted in"? Thatis the question here, and there is absolutely precedence to suggest that these adults had to be circumcised to be part of the nation.

Look, for example, at Exodus 12:48-51, "When a stranger shall live as a foreigner with you, and will keep the Passover to Yahweh, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one who is born in the land: but no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. One law shall be to him who is born at home, and to the stranger who lives as a foreigner among you." (This commandment- circumcision as a requirement to observe Passover- applies to the native and the foreigner. Notice what comes next.)
All the children of Israel did so.
(Very clearly, the adults who came out of Egypt with the people understood the necessity of circumcision of adults as a prerequisite to observe Passover.)
As Yahweh commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did. It happened the same day, that Yahweh brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

Just my two cents.


Solomon Avar said:

Adult male Circumcision is clearly not counted as one of the Lord's commandments, any more than female circumcision.

Did you type that correctly?

21 If you were a slave when you were called, do not feel concerned about it; but even though you can be made free, choose rather to serve.

New International Version (©1984)
Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you--but if you get a chance to be free, take it.

God will do the main footwork for you to be observant.

My view is that you stay in your current position but if the opportunity arises, take it.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service