Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

"If you keep one part of the law, you are obligated to keep it all" - Anyone ever heard this? I have been having this discussion online with some folks. The idea isn't really biblical - as best I can tell, it is a combination of Gal 5:3 and James 2:10 and then kind of mixing it up a bit more.

James 2:10 says if we break a part of the law, we are guilty of breaking all of it - sort of the opposite of "if you keep one part you have to keep it all"

Gal 5:3 says if you allow yourself to be circumcised, you are obligated to keep the whole law - I.E. - if you try to be saved by converting to be a Jew you are obligated to keep the whole law - it doesn't say if you do ANY part of the law, I am obligated to keep it all. Just circumcision.

So I often hear "If you keep one part of the law, you are obligated to keep it all" which is simply not what the text says. How is it folks who claim to "preach from the bible only" can't see they are altering the text to what it doesn't say and then claim to be "bible only". I believe you have to be very careful with the word. It is exact and altering it even slightly changes the meaning and that is blasphemy IMO.

Well - actually, when the NT says 'circumcision' that is most likely a short version of 'convert to Judaism' which involves (implicitly) submission to the 'yoke of the Torah' which does mean obeying all of Torah law - that is, being a Jew.

Part of the history of the early Christian church is the evolution of its change from an in-house Jew-only sect to an open (and ultimately majority) to gentile variety.

So the Galations verse isn't actually talking about 'getting circumcised' so much as it is talking about totally changing your original faith and ethnic identity and becoming a Jew and a full member of the People of Israel.

Interesting point William and one I have not thought about until you mentioned. I agree that the Gal passage is referring to circumcision. I think it was just chosen as an obvious outward example of an appeal to a physical connection to God's people. I agree with what you are saying that it never says if do any part of the law...because some may hold this day special until the Lord, does not mean they are trusting in that physical connection. Perhaps a better way I should have been thinking about it is that if you are trusting in that connection to God's people then you better make sure you are fully connected and compliant in that manner. So yes, I see your point. Thanks.

agricola wrote:Well - actually, when the NT says 'circumcision' that is most likely a short version of 'convert to Judaism' which involves (implicitly) submission to the 'yoke of the Torah' which does mean obeying all of Torah law - that is, being a Jew.

Part of the history of the early Christian church is the evolution of its change from an in-house Jew-only sect to an open (and ultimately majority) to gentile variety.

So the Galations verse isn't actually talking about 'getting circumcised' so much as it is talking about totally changing your original faith and ethnic identity and becoming a Jew and a full member of the People of Israel.

Argicola, I was sort of saying what you say in the last paragraph: " I.E. - if you try to be saved by converting to be a Jew you are obligated to keep the whole law "

so I agree 100% with what you said, circumcision is short hand for converting to Judaism

klp wrote:Interesting point William and one I have not thought about until you mentioned. I agree that the Gal passage is referring to circumcision. I think it was just chosen as an obvious outward example of an appeal to a physical connection to God's people. I agree with what you are saying that it never says if do any part of the law...because some may hold this day special until the Lord, does not mean they are trusting in that physical connection. Perhaps a better way I should have been thinking about it is that if you are trusting in that connection to God's people then you better make sure you are fully connected and compliant in that manner. So yes, I see your point. Thanks.

Thanks. I hear this from CoC'ers all the time, if you mention the law not "being nailed to the cross" they jump to "well do you want to do sacrifices? burn incense? If you keep one part of the law, you have to keep it all"... again, a mishmash of gal 5:3 and james 2:10 with a CoC spin to top it off. Have a good one...

I was often confused as a child about how much of 'the old law' was actually in effect and what wasn't - and how we were supposed to TELL. On the one hand, we were taught that 'the old law' was gone and forget about it because, you know, 'Jesus' and on the OTHER hand we were CERTAINLY told in no uncertain terms that 'honor your mother and father' (for one) was DEFINITELY still in effect (and so was the don't kill, don't lie, don't steal and don't covet parts, except not the Sabbath one EXCEPT that Sunday was the new Sabbath and we kept THAT, and of course God was 'one' etc except there was actually Three, and....no wonder we were confused).

Now - as a grown up person I hope - I can see that the Jews (and Paul etc) were talking about the whole edifice of 'the law', not all the INDIVIDUAL pieces - but I can still certainly remember when 'the individual parts' were quibbled about - so that Galatians verse and the discussion is certainly quite reminiscent! I think the writer is using 'circumcision' to refer to the whole edifice of Jewish law and custom (that is, referring to conversion to Judaism/joining the Jewish people). There's a grammatical term for that but I can't remember it right now.
But I can also see how we could read it the way we learned to read things 'at church': as a single instance of obeying a single isolated commandment.

Double vision. It's a thing.

agricola wrote:I was often confused as a child about how much of 'the old law' was actually in effect and what wasn't - and how we were supposed to TELL. On the one hand, we were taught that 'the old law' was gone and forget about it because, you know, 'Jesus' and on the OTHER hand we were CERTAINLY told in no uncertain terms that 'honor your mother and father' (for one) was DEFINITELY still in effect (and so was the don't kill, don't lie, don't steal and don't covet parts, except not the Sabbath one EXCEPT that Sunday was the new Sabbath and we kept THAT, and of course God was 'one' etc except there was actually Three, and....no wonder we were confused).

Now - as a grown up person I hope - I can see that the Jews (and Paul etc) were talking about the whole edifice of 'the law', not all the INDIVIDUAL pieces - but I can still certainly remember when 'the individual parts' were quibbled about - so that Galatians verse and the discussion is certainly quite reminiscent! I think the writer is using 'circumcision' to refer to the whole edifice of Jewish law and custom (that is, referring to conversion to Judaism/joining the Jewish people). There's a grammatical term for that but I can't remember it right now.
But I can also see how we could read it the way we learned to read things 'at church': as a single instance of obeying a single isolated commandment.

Double vision. It's a thing.

I agree on the circumcision / uncircumcision thing - circumcised, uncircumcised were terms used throughout the bible to indicate Jew/Gentile. Galatians simply argues Gentiles don't have to become Jews, but it doesn't say Jews have to become Gentiles - Paul clearly says in 1st cor 7 to remain as you are called - if you are uncircumcised don't be circumcised but if you are circumcised don't become uncircumcised, since one can't become uncircumcised after being circumcised, he is clearly referring to a Jew not becoming Gentile. This isn't the only case either, the term uncircumcised is used throughout the bible to refer to Gentiles.

So Galatians is just arguing that Gentiles don't have to become Jews, but Paul clearly also states Jews don't have to "convert" to become Christians. They can remain Jewish. This all got perverted by the end of the first century when all of the Jewish leaders were purged out of the church, and later councils such as Nicea II that said Jews had to renounce all things Jewish to "convert" to Christianity.

agricola wrote:...except not the Sabbath one EXCEPT that Sunday was the new Sabbath and we kept THAT...

I heard this a lot too. But do they? I can't remember one COCer who would say that one should not work on Sunday, and I don't mean only outside-of-the-home, for-profit work, I'm referring to 'work' in the OT sense of the word. How do they justify considering Sunday to be the 'new Sabbath' or the 'Christian Sabbath' when they don't apply the rules of the Sabbath to Sunday. For the record, this inconsistency is not limited to the COC and I've heard that in older times Christians did tend to 'keep the Sabbath,' as it were, on Sundays.

Lev

I think an argument could be made that requiring a believer to keep any part of the law would nullify faith, grace, & Christ sacrifice. That may be why Luther didn't think the Book of James belonged in the Bible.

Some believe if works are required that would seemingly nullify the concept of grace.

I don't believe James was saying 'you have to do works'. I think he was saying that if you believe then you WILL inevitably do works - it is the outer sign of the inner faith.