The Question of Circumcision, Part 2

Hello everyone. 

We have been looking at Galatians and case that Paul had been making against holding on the the Law and forcing Gentile converts to Christianity to submit to circumcision.  In my last post, I discussed one of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, where the question of circumcision did come up, and in the end the leadership in Jerusalem supported Paul's view and Titus, a Gentile, choose not to be circumcised. This visit could have occured in Acts 11, when Paul and Barnabus returned to Jerusalem with a relief effort to aid those living in Judea in the face of a severe famine. (Acts 11:27-30), or it could be in Acts 15, where Paul and Barnabus returned to Jerusalem to specifically address the question of circumcision. The timeline on all of this is not clear.  But, the summit in Acts 15 on this question is worth a detour for our understanding of Paul's message in Galatains.  

Acts 15:1 tells us that men came to Antioch from Judea teaching that these Gentile converts could not be Christians without submitting to the Law of Moses and to circumcision.  This was a big moment in the church, with the potential to divide it into two groups, a circumcision group and a non-circumcision group. It is imperative that the early church gets this one right. According to Acts 15:2, Paul and Barnabus fought vigorously against this teaching in Antioch then go up to Jerusalem to continue the fight.  

There is a big appeal in Paul’s message to God-fearing Gentiles.  Historian Justo Gonzalez says this, “His (Paul's) message was not that Israel had been abandoned by God, but rather that now, through the resurrection of Jesus, the age of the Messiah had dawned, and that therefore the way was open for Gentiles to join the people of God.  This message would have been quite appealing to God-fearers who now found that they could join the people of God without undergoing circumcision or following the dietary laws of Israel.”  (Gonzalez, 35.)

Acts 15:5 tells us that the demand for the keeping of the Law came from some Pharisees who had come to faith.  They were demanding that the Gentile converts be circumcised and calling upon church leadership to "order them to keep the Law of Moses.”  Legalism dies hard. While they may have left some of the legalism of Phariseeism behind, they were still drawn to it, and it is through that lens that they saw Christianity.  

A little later in Acts 15, Peter addresses the issue. “My brothers, you know that from our early days God chose that it should be from my mouth that the Gentiles would hear the Good News of the Gospel and come to faith.  And God, who knows the heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us.  He made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts through faith.  So now, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the apprentices’ neck that neither we nor ancestors have been able to bear? Rather, we believe it is by the grace of our Lord Jesus that we came to salvation, just like them.”  (Acts 15:7-11) Peter reminds them of his dealings with Cornelius.  The Holy Spirit came on them as a sign that God was with them, and circumcision did not come up.  No distinction was made here and Cornelius and his family were not required to submit to circumcision before being baptized.  Peter asks why they should place a yoke (or burden) on the Gentiles that the Jews themselves had been unable to bear.  The legalism that had been built up around the Law had been a big backbreaking load.  Why force it on anyone? 

Peter’s words echo Paul’s message.  The Gospel is a message of God's grace, mercy and forgiveness, and not a message of embracing the Law and fulfilling its righteousness.

Paul and Barnabus share how God had worked in antioch, and then James also addresses the crowd. He quotes from Amos:

 ‘After this I will return

    and rebuild David’s fallen tent.

Its ruins I will rebuild,

    and I will restore it,

that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,

    even all the Gentiles who bear my name,

says the Lord, who does these things’ (Amos 9:11-12)

The scripture James uses indicates that God’s plan had always included the Gentiles, so they should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who were now turning to God.  (Acts 15:19) At James’ recommendation, the leadership composed a letter and sent it out to Gentile believers.  The letter is recorded in Acts 15:23-29.  

The letter includes: 

• The circumcision group was teaching things not authorized by them, so the Gentiles would not be bound by their teachings. 
• The statement also says that it seemed good to both the Holy Spirit and the them that the Gentiles abstain from these four things:
• Meat sacrificed to idols.
• Blood.
• Meat from strangled animals.
• Sexual immorality. 

In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabus were able to return to Antioch with a letter from church leadership, seemingly endorsed by the Holy Spirit of God that expressly does not bind circumcision on the Gentiles.  

So, this brings us back to Galatians where Paul must address the question that just won't go away. It is a question that has the power to divide the church.  What is the real gospel?  Is it a gospel of God's grace, or is it a gospel of strict adherence to a set of rules? We certainly know where Paul stands, as he continues to make his case for grace. 

The Question of Circumcision

Greetings.

Today, we will move on into Galatians 2, as Paul continues to defend his message of grace.  Here is my translatian of verses 1 to 3: 

1 Fourteen years later, I went up to Jerusalem again, this time, with Barnabus and Titus.  2 I went according to the revelation that I had received, and I shared with them the Gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles.  I did this privately among the leadership to ensure that I had not been running or would continue to run in vain. 3 However, even Titus, a Greek, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised.

Paul continues to tell his story, as he puts forward his arguments against this other gospel, the gospel of legalistic righteousness and circumcision. So, Pual explains that fourteen years after his initial visit to Peter and James, Paul returns to Jerusalem in response to a revelation given to him by God. (Note: Some believe that "fourteen years later" means fourteen years after his conversion, rather than fourteen years after his previous visit to Jerusalem.) Paul has now spent time in his hometown of Tarsus and then teamed up with Barnabus in Antioch.  The two of them had been very successful in Antioch among the Gentiles.   

Note: As we move forward, we need to breifly consider the history of Jews and Gentiles in the church.  Initially, the church was made up entirely of Jews, but, in Acts 10, with Cornelius, Peter had opened the doors of the kingdom to Gentiles. He defends his actions in the early part of chapter 11.  

Luke makes no specific mention of circumcisions being preformed in Acts 10 and 11.  However, in Acts 10:45 he mentions the astonishment of the circumcised believers that were with Peter at Cornelius’s house, when the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household.  Later, Acts 11:3, Peter receives criticism for going into the house of the uncircumcised and eating with them.  

So, the point is very clearly made that Cornelius was uncircumcised, and yet welcomed into the Kingdom of God.  There is no mention of Cornelius and his household being circumcised before they were given the Holy Spirit by God.  It appears here that the whole circumcision/uncircumcision thing was unimportant to the Holy Spirit in this matter.  After Peter defended his actions, (which were completely guided by the Holy Spirit, Acts 11:12), those who had criticized him concluded that Peter had done the right thing, and that “even to the Gentiles, God has granted repentance that leads to life.”  (Acts 11:18)

Now, with the door to the kingdom open to Gentiles, the church in Antioch has grown rapidly, with many Gentile converts.  But what does this mean?  

The Jewish nation had been set apart by God for centuries.  The Law belonged to the Jews, and within it, circumcision.  Obedience to the Law had always been part of that special relationship with God.  Jewish Christians were still being obedient to the Law and had been circumcised as infants.  However, these new Gentile converts had no relationship to the Law and had not been circumcised.  So, here is the big question:  Are these Gentile converts also bound by the Law and circumcision?  

If so, that would mean all adult male Gentile converts would need to submit to being circumcised.  Something, anyone would be reluctant to do, especially if it turns out that it is not necessary. 

The gospel that Paul and Barnabus were preaching centered on God’s grace, not The Law, and did not involve circumcision for its converts.  As Paul and Barnabuss presented this gospel to the leaders in Jerusalem, the apostles agreed with it.  Not that Paul needed their approval, he had received it by direct revelation from God.  Perhaps this was done so that others would get on board, now that he had the backing of the apostles. Further evidence of their backing comes when Titus, a Gentile who came with them, opted to not be circumcised.  If this lack of circumcision for Titus was a sticking point for the Jerusalem leadership, Paul makes no mention of it here.  

It seems that they were all on board with the gospel of grace that Paul was preaching among the Gentiles. 

The question of circumcision conitiues to arise, but it seems the church leaders see no need to bind this on the Gentiles.  You may wonder then, it the matter had already been settled, why was Paul needing to deal with it again in the churches in Galatia?  I wonder that too.  As we move forward in our examination of Glatains, we will see Paul continue to make his case against legalism and for grace. 

Paul's Backstory: Part 2

 Hello everyone.

Today, I will continue to share the story that Paul tells, in his efforts to to prove his point that the gospel he has shared with them is the one and only true gospel.  Here is my translation of Gal. 1:16b-24

When he called me, I did not immediately consult with anyone. 17  I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me. Instead, I went to Arabia, then went back to Damascus. 
18 Three years later, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and I stayed with him for fifteen days. 19 I didn’t see any of the other apostles, only James, the Lord’s brother.  20 (Before God, I promise you, that what I am writing to you is true). 21 After that, I went into the region of Syria and Cilicia. 22 But my face was yet unknown to the churches that are in Christ in Judea. 23 They had only heard that one who had formerly persecuted them was now preaching the gospel of faith, rather than destroying it.  24 So they praised God because of me. 

Paul states that after God's call, he didn't consult with anyone, including those who were already apostles and the leaders of the church,  but rather goes off to Arabia for a while, then returns to Damascus.  We can only speculate as to what happened during Paul’s time in Arabia, but it seems likely that this was a time in which Paul received that gospel that he spoke about in verse 12, the one that he did not receive from a man, but through revelation from Jesus Christ.  He speaks here of going out to Arabia, and of not consulting with anyone.  This idea fits what Paul is saying here. 

Douglas Moo notes that there are two different lines of thinking regarding the trip to Arabia.  One line of thinking is that Paul went away to meditate on the vision of Christ.  The other is that he went for the purpose of sharing the gospel.  Moo points out that these two things do not need to be mutually exclusive, and that Paul could very well have gone off to do both.  (Moo, 106-107.) 

Then, three years after his conversion, Paul makes his way to Jerusalem.  He stays about two weeks, seeing Peter and James.  So, Paul is called directly by Jesus and given his own revelation.  He is at work for three years before consulting with the leaders of the church, and then when he does, he only meets with two of them.  One would think that all of the apostles and leaders of the church would be eager to meet with Paul, but it appears that they were not.  

In verse 20, Paul makes something of a parenthetical statement.  I have translated it as “Before God, I promise you, that what I am writing to you is true.”  I wondered what Paul was saying here that was so important that he needed to pause and declare the truth of it “before God.” Moo helps out here.  Paul has made the point that he had learned of the gospel of grace that he had taught them by direct revelation of God, and not from the apostles, whom he had very little contact with, or, for that matter, any other man. (Moo, 111.) 

Paul is dealing with people who are challenging his apostolic authority, so he has to strongly defend his position that God gave him a direct revelation, and therefore his message is authoritative. 

After Paul’s short visit to Jerusalem, where he only saw a couple of the church leaders over a two week period, he went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.  Paul is still making the point that he had very little contact with the apostles, and that his message came from God, rather than men. (It appears that after his brief stop in Jerusalem, Paul went home to Tarsus.  Tarsus is in Cilicia.  Acts 11:25 tells us that Barnabus, who had been sent to Antioch, goes to Tarsus and brings Paul back with him to Antioch.) 

In verses 22-23, Paul is still making the point that he was not well-known in Judea, and was not influenced by the leaders there.  He says in the Greek “ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ “(agnooumenos tō prosōpō).  A direct translation of this would be something like, "unknown by face," meaning that the ordinary disciple in Judea may have heard about Paul, but they would not have recognized him.  Paul’s status as a relative unknown in Judea strengthens his point that he did not learn the gospel he was teaching from men.  

Why is Paul spending so much time stressing the point that he received his revelation directly from God and not from other men?  Well, if his message came directly from God and has no other human influence, then it has to be the one that we should listen to.  It carries the authority of God. This other message cannot possibly make this claim, and should be avoided.  The Gospel that Paul presented to them is the true, and the one and only Gospel from God. 

The chapter ends with Paul making the point that while most of the disciples in Judea had not personally met Paul, they had heard of his conversion, and praised God for it. 

As Saul, he had thrown himself into persecuting the church with great vigor.  Now, as a fellow-disciple, he was pursuing Christ and the growth of the church with the same energy. For the Judean disciple, this must have seemed almost too good to be true. John Stott shares that they must have seen Saul’s conversion as “A signal trophy of God’s grace.”  (Stott, 36.)  The church’s greatest persecutor had become its greatest defender, and people had good reason to give praise to God. Paul had been given a special task by God, to take the gospel to the Gentiles.  (Acts 13:47.)  So, in his missionary journeys, he would spend very little time in Jerusalem.  He had not been converted there, learned his message or mission there, but he was still a great encouragement there.  

Paul's Backstory

Hello everyone.

We will continue our examination of Galatians 1, looking at verses 13-16a:  Here is my translation: 

13 You have heard about the way I used to live, when I still practiced Judaism.  I was a great persecutor of God’s church.  In fact, I was trying to destroy it. 14 My advancement in Judaism was beyond many of my fellow Jews of that day, as I was incredibly zealous in keeping the traditions of my ancestors.  
15 However, God appointed me, even before I was born, and called me by his grace.  He was pleased, 16 to reveal his son to me. That way, I could proclaim his gospel to the Gentiles.  

Starting in verse 13, Paul begins telling his story.  It seems that now Paul no longer considers that he practices Judaism.  He says, “ You have heard about the way I used to live, when I still practiced Judaism.”  (my translation)  Other translations like the NIV say “my previous way of life in Judaism.”  It appears that Paul considers that he is still a Jew ethnically, but has moved on from Judaism.  It is important to note that his detractors and opponents have not moved on, as they were trying to practice a hybrid Christianity that was compatible with the Mosaic Law. (Schreiner, 98.)

Undoubtedly, his audience had heard some of this story, particularly the part about how, at one time, Paul had persecuted God’s people.  He openly admits to this, calling himself, “a great persecutor of God’s church”, and admitting that he had been dead set on destroying it. 

As Paul continues in verse 14, he discusses how he had advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries.  He admits that he had been zealous for keeping the traditions of his ancestors. When it came to following the law and keeping the traditions, Paul was near the top. In other words: Paul knew and understood legalistic religion on a very high level. In the way that he had lived, he had been steeped in it. (Paul tells Agrippa in Acts 26:5 that he had conformed to the strictest sect of Judaism, living as a Pharisee.) Stott describes the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus like this, “a bigot and a fanatic, whole-hearted in his devotion to Judaism and his persecution of Christ and the church.” (Stott, 31.) But, Paul stresses now that he has left that way of life behind. 

The revelation of grace, had indeed been a revelation to Paul of a different, and better, way to live.  Paul had been so zealous for his former cause, that he believed that it was his duty even  to persecute and kill the ‘heretic’ Christians, and that God was pleased with this.  That version of Paul, called Saul, may have understood something of God’s holiness and righteousness, but understood nothing of God’s mercy, love and grace. This understanding, apparently, had to be given to Paul through special revelation.  We cansee that Saul the persecutor connected his persecution of Chrisitains with his love and zeal for God, but all of Saul’s passion and zeal for God were seriously misguided. Fortunately for the church, God had plans for this persecutor of His people. 

Paul tells us, in verse 15, that God had chosen him, even before he was born. The Greek:  ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου (ek Koilias matros mou) means “out of my mother’s womb.”  Like John the Baptist, God had made plans for Paul even before he was born.  (Paul obviously didn’t get the Holy Spirit in the womb the way John did, as he did not recognize Jesus until much later on.) We see a similar call in Jeremiah 1:5.  “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you , before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”  God had a plan for Paul from the beginning, similar to other great men of the Bible like Jeremiah and John. 

In verse 15, going into verse 16, we see that God was pleased to reveal His Son to Paul.  This may be making reference to Jesus’ appearance to Saul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. Saul, on his way to Damascus to capture Christians and bring them back to Jerusalem as prisoners, encountered the risen Christ.  (Acts 9:1-9)  It could be making reference to the time Paul spends in Arabia that he references in Galatians 1:17, as a time when he receives that special revelation.  Perhaps he is refering to both.  Either way, Paul makes it clear that through His grace God has revealed Jesus To him, and with that God's gospel of grace. 

His readers here are also told that God had called Paul for a specific purpose, the purpose of proclaiming this gospel of grace to the Gentiles.  (Paul is a curious choice for messenger to the Gentiles, since he was the most Jewish from among the Jews.)