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.