Works/ works of the law and circumcision

[JosephJohn]

Hey all,

So I’ve run into some confusion regarding works and works of the law.

Basically I was somewhat surprised reading Isaiah 66 that the prophet basically applies the old testimate prohibition on “unclean” foods to the time of the second coming (if I’m interpreting him right). That doesn’t make sense to me since I we understand the food prohibitions to have been fulfilled. I should’ve just immediately trusted the church’s teaching on the matter but out of confusion and doubt I tried to find a way to make koscher law compatible with some interpretation of the new testimate and that proved impossible. That apparent inconsistently is an anxious thing for me since I rely a lot on the amazing consistency of the whole bible as a source of stronger faith.

It really seems like the prohibition on pork was understood to be a natural moral and not ceremonial law. This had be questioning how we as Catholics interpret Isaiah and other kosher related passages to remove the progibition on pork but not on other controversial old testimate prohibitions.

Part 2. Galatians 5 talks strongly about how if a Christian were to even passively allow himself to be circumcised the Lord’s death does them no good. The way this is worded is frightening because it does not explicitly include the possibility of repenting of that error. That normally wouldn’t be upsetting except that it runs parallel to some passages in Hebrews 6 and 10 which talk about the impossibility of repentance for an apostate back to Judaism. I understand those passages are nuanced and God forgives anyone who turns back to him but having a logical understanding of this would help me feel at peace’s. (This issue I think personally worries many circumcised Catholics who read this passage or anyone who feels tempted to follow now removed old testimate laws out of fear that they are still in effect)

Additionally how do we know that we must observe some laws in order to not reject the gifts we received in our baptism but know that if we try to rely on other laws we are likewise rejecting the same gifts. If we don’t follow some laws we are doing wrong but if we do follow others we are also doing wrong. I must be very confused.

Apologies for the long question; thanks for any help.

 

[ziapueblo]

This may or may not be what you are looking for so I apologize now

To understand Paul and “works of the law” we need to understand the Judiazer heresy. Jewish Christians at the time believed that for one to be a Christian they had to first become Jewish, circumcision and follow the kosher laws, no bacon for breakfast. Jews living in diaspora could not sacrifice at the temple, maybe a once in a lifetime pilgrimage for them, so these two things were what set them apart from the gentiles that they lived among them.

This of course was taken care of during the Council in Jerusalem, Acts 15. Gentile Christians have no need to follow the Torah, kosher or circumcision. This is what Galatians and Romans’ is all about.

Hope this helps. If it’s not what your looking for, my apologies.

ZP

 

[fhansen]

Paul was battling legalism, and so emphasized the fact that adhering to some ritualistic or ceremonial law, or to any law for that matter for the purpose of making oneself right in God’s eyes, was the wrong approach-because it was insufficient regardless of how perfectly done. Fulfilling ceremonial laws couldn’t change ones status vis a vis justice because they’re mere external acts. But fulfilling moral laws can’t justify anyone either because those, too, are merely external acts unless motivated by love, which fulfills the law by its nature.

 

[JosephJohn]

Thank you both for your answers they help and I think I understand them. Just to confirm though, Paul is saying if you observe ceremonial laws as if they are nessesary you are excluded from the church because you don’t really believe Christ was enough? That makes sense to me if that’s what you are saying.

Does anyone have an idea why Isaiah implies the prohibition is perpetual. I mean he could be speaking metaphilorically but it doesn’t seem that way reading it. I can logically settle Isaiah 66 being a true prophesy with it implying all non observers of Koscher will be destroyed. Thanks again for your answers!

 

[Justin_Mary]

As a Catholic I’m looking forward to the inward transformation the Lord has promised. Where I believe his law will lead to true life & happiness.

Following the law doesn’t save me. Belief in the one who promised he will heal me does.

 

[BartholomewB]

Jews are required to keep kosher. Christians aren’t. It’s a different religion. As @ziapueblo already noted, the Council of Jerusalem exempted Gentile Christians from the Jewish purity laws (Acts 15).

 

[Pattylt]

Does this mean that I, as a Jew, would have to keep all the law if I became Catholic? Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

Thanks!

 

[BartholomewB]

No, you wouldn’t be required to, but you would be free to if that’s what you wanted. Or rather, you would have been free to, back in the days of James the Just, in the middle of the first century AD, when the Jewish Christian community remained Torah-observant, constituting, in effect, a sect within Second Temple Judaism.

 

[JosephJohn]

Alright follow up question in the same vein. Gallatians that if you are Jewish and Christian you should follow koscher but realize it’s for a cultural reason not because it has saving power. Gallatians also kind of equates being circumcised to being Jewish. Does this mean that a circumsiZed Catholic in the modern day should observe koscher because they were committed to it by being circumsiZed. That doesn’t really make sense with out modern understanding. Especially since I think most American Catholic men are probably circumsiZed but don’t observe koscher because they don’t consider themselves Christian Jews. So I kind of answered my own question… I guess I just want to know why we know that circumsized christians are not automatically Jewish? Was it possible in the early church for a Jewish person to leave Judaism and its laws and just observe Christian laws as a gentile? Could Peter or Paul have eaten pork?

 

[Justin_Mary]

Does this mean that a circumsiZed Catholic in the modern day should observe koscher because they were committed to it by being circumsiZed

Paul’s point was that circumcision was useless now that the law has been fullfilled in Christ.

Before faith the law was likened to a guardian to an underage heir. Now that Christ has come, the heir is of age & has no need for a guardian.

Circumcision, no circumcision is of no consequence now.

 

[JosephJohn]

That’s really interesting and makes sense thank you ray:t3: .

 

[Nita]

All circumcised males are not Jewish anymore than all people who are submerged or sprinkled with water are baptized Christians. Most males are circumcised in a hospital and its a medical procedure with no religious intent or ritual – just as taking a bath is a hygenic act with no religious meaning.

Jewish Circumcision was a religious rite for the purpose of making one part/member of the Old Covenant people of God, just as Baptism is the religious rite instituted by Christ that makes us members of the New Covenant people of God.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Before faith the law was likened to a guardian to an underage heir.

The law of God is a profound subject, between the time of Adam and Moses there were no laws. So when Cane killed Abel, he did wrong, but there were no laws to break. When God saw all the constant wrong doings of mankind; he introduced laws through Moses. Once laws have been introduced, then people can be judged and condemned. I believe that God had intended that man should obey their conscience willingly, and so there would be no need for any law.

We can loiter around all day doing nothing, and we obey the commandment do not kill, and we also obey the law that says a boy should be circumcised at birth; if you have been circumcised. In a way these laws are kind of negative, because we do not have to do anything. On the other hand, the greatest commandments command us to do something.

All the law of God hangs on the greatest commandments. Think of the greatest commandments as a coat hook, and all the law of God is represented by the coat that hangs on that hook. If there is no coat hook, the coat falls on the floor and gets trampled on.

If we love God above all else; and all our neighbours as we love ourselves then that sums up all the law.

 

[Justin_Mary]

The law of God is a profound subject, between the time of Adam and Moses there were no laws. So when Cane killed Abel, he did wrong, but there were no laws to break.

But Cain was banished & cursed because he killed Abel.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

But Cain was banished & cursed because he killed Abel.

Cain inherited the knowledge of good and Evil from his parents, and he chose to go against his conscience; but he did not break any law. In a similar way, people at the time of Noah went against there conscience, and God punished them with the flood. But they had no laws to break.

 

[Cathoholic]

JosephJohn . . . .

It really seems like the prohibition on pork was understood to be a natural moral and not ceremonial law.

If that were the case, I would expect to see consequences for eating pork BEFORE the Mosaic Law.

Part 2. Galatians 5 talks strongly about how if a Christian were to even passively allow himself to be circumcised the Lord’s death does them no good.

This is in the context to Jewish people. Jewish people who put their Covenant hope in their circumcision (see Genesis 17:9 and following).

If a Christian has their kid circumcised merely because dad was cicumcised, or the family doesn’t want him to “look different” (in that area), no big deal.

St. Paul even did that with St. Timothy so the Jews would not be scandalized.

ACTS 16:3 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

But St. Paul (and St. Timothy) never thought of this circumcision as “salvific” (unto salvation).

But if a Christian family is relying on “circumcision” for Covenant entrance
(instead of being re-birthed via water and the Spirit-via Baptism) this is a BIG problem.

In the New and Eternal Covenant we are called to put on “the circumcision of Christ”.

We are called to put on FULFULLED circumcision.

We are called to put on Baptism.

COLOSSIANS 2:9-13a 9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him . . .

MATTHEW 5:17 17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

In this fulfillment things like unclean foods are done away with.
Prescriptions like circumcision are FULFILLED (Baptism).
Moral laws like adultery, have HIGHER standards.

(Before it was “no adultery”.
Now it is not only “no adultery”, but now we have MORE grace so
we should not even THINK that way.

MATTHEW 5:27-28 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

.

In the New Covenant there are DIFFERENT kinds of “law” and if one wasn’t tuned into that, they might come up with the theory that
“the law” being unable to save = no moral laws are necessary for salvation
(some justification by faith ALONE people wrongly say just that).

Here are a couple other things for you.

God bless.

Cathoholic

.

From Fr. Mike Schmitz . . .

.

From Dr. John Bergsma . . .