Did Paul think that Christians must get circumcised in order to be justified or approved for salvation? Here are some of the texts in Paul's writings that deal with circumcision. Compare Acts 15.
See Romans 4:11; 1 Corinthians 7:18-19; Galatians 2:3; 5:6; 6:14-16; Ephesians 2:11-14; Philippians 3:1-3.
Sunday, October 18, 2020
The Apostle Paul on Circumcision
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
I do not think you are asking the right question. Wasn't Paul the apostle to the nations?
Yes, Paul was an apostle to the nations, but please demonstrate how that restricts the applicability of his counsel to Gentiles alone. After all, the decision in Acts 15 was not limited to Gentiles, as the context shows. And why should 1 Cor. 7:18-19 be limited to Gentiles, even if he wrote the words to a Gentile audience? Additionally, read Galatians 2:15-21.
On Galatians 2:16, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/05/galatians-215-16-ean-mh.html
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-covenant-of-circumcision/
"Actually, there is no explicit commandment in the Torah requiring circumcision (or immersion) for proselytes."
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/18/18-4/18-4-pp217-227_JETS.pdf
"Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”"
Is this what you mean by context?
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/55/55-1/JETS_55-1_65-85_Tanner.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/38415933/Revisiting_the_Creative_Use_of_Amos_in_Acts_and_What_it_Tells_Us_About_Luke
Yes, there's Acts 15:10-11 and Acts 15:1-3, where we read about what necessitated the whole Jerusalem meeting.
The way I read Paul, not only did his words apply to Gentiles, but he suggested that Jews also did not need to be circumcised. His message in Romans assumes a universal tone as it applies to Jews and Gentiles alike (Romans 2:28-29; 9:6ff).
Catholic Encyclopedia Article About Circumcision:
Even though Christ Himself, as a true son of Abraham, submitted to the law, His followers were to be children of Abraham by faith, and were to "adore the Father in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23). The Council of Jerusalem decided against the necessity of the rite, and St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, condemns the teachers that wished to make the Church of Christ only a continuation of the synagogue: "Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (v, 2). Here he refers to the supposed efficacy and necessity of circumcision, rather than to the mere ceremony; for he did not consider it wrong to circumcise Timothy. It was wrong, however, for the Galatians, having been baptized, and having taken upon themselves the obligations of the law of Christ with all its privileges, to be circumcised as a necessary means of salvation, since, by going for salvation from the Church to the Synagogue, they virtually denied the sufficiency of the merits of Christ (cf. Piconio, "Trip. Exp. in Gal.", v, 2).
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm
Colossians 2:11ff:
See https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ivp-nt/Circumcision-Christ
Compare https://books.google.com/books?id=PmL-LogqJ-YC&pg=PA78&dq=do+christians+have+to+be+circumcised+for+salvation?&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWnI7ztMHsAhXEVN8KHTozCDcQ6AEwCXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=do%20christians%20have%20to%20be%20circumcised%20for%20salvation%3F&f=false
I welcome you insight on Rom 2:28 as worded by the NIV? Using "only".
See good old Bill Mounce: https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/%E2%80%9Creal%E2%80%9D-jews-revisited-romans-2-28
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147825493.pdf
I still wonder why Christians must be circumcised if the ransom sacrifice is what saves us. Is the ransom not sufficient? Furthermore, circumcision was a sign between Abraham's descendants and Jehovah.
Is the paper talking about Christians, or rather, those NOT classed as descended from Abraham?
Rom 3:1 - What, then, is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.
3:20 Therefore, no one will be declared righteous before him by works of law, for by law comes the accurate knowledge of sin.
I still maintain that unless proved otherwise that Paul is speaking from a pharisaic Jew perspective. I have found nothing that specifically spells out that Torah is annulled for the natural born Jews (and that is why Timothy was circumcised). All the specifics that Pauls condemns are traditions that he would have been very familiar with.
28 For we consider that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law.
30 Since God is one, he will declare circumcised people righteous as a result of faith and uncircumcised people righteous by means of their faith. 31 Do we, then, abolish law by means of our faith? Not at all! On the contrary, we uphold law.
Deuteronomy 10:12-17, Jeremiah 4:4
One does not negate the other. Jesus opened the way for all but did he homogenize?
I don't see why we should believe that Paul is speaking from a Pharasaic Jew perspective, especially in light of Galatians 1. Philippians 3:1ff seems to militate against this position as well along with many other scriptures that indicate Paul is going beyond the Jewish law.
Acts 16:1-5 makes clear that Timothy was circumcised to appease the Jews, not because it was a religious obligation. Paul was becoming a Jew to the Jews. It's also hard for me to understand how Galatians 3:23-25 can be read in such a way to suggest that Torah is still binding on fleshly Israel. And what about Rom. 9:6-8? Yeah, I realize that someone can always challenge an interpretation, but some interpretations are more likely than others.
As Peter wrote, Paul can be hard to understand sometimes, but I don't believe he's saying the Law is still in effect. Within the context, Paul shows that Abraham was not justified by law or by works, but through faith. Notice what he says about the law in Romans 4:13-16 (ESV):
"For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all"
Here's part of the conclusion for that paper you posted:
The Jew of this passage is only a so-called Jew. He thinks of himself as a Jew, but Paul disagrees. And Paul disagrees, not because he has redefined Jewishness, but because he does not believe that a gentile can actually become a Jew. Paul rejects the belief, held by some of his contemporary Jews, believers in Jesus and otherwise, that gentiles needed to, or at the very least could, become Jews.
Many links and articles have gone back and forth between us, but I found this piece which is from 2016:
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-08532016000100007
For another critique of Thiessen, see
Kim, S-H. & Kim, K.S., 2018,
‘The chiastic inversion in the argument of Romans 2:1−3:9 and the identity of the interlocutor in Romans 2:17−29’, Verbum et Ecclesia
39(1), a1782.
https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v39i1.1782
Chiastic structures are highly subjective.
IMO Jeremiah is highly significant to Paul's understanding.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/circumcision_of_the_heart
"For the law brings wrath" - what law?
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8RB7BX6/download
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147825593.pdf
The other 2 papers I posted don't rely on chaistic structures to refute Thiessen, and besides, chiasmus/chiasm is not totally subjective: chiasmus is a literary device that's structural and evident from its form.
I'm not questioning the importance of Jer. 4:4 and related texts although they must be read against the background of Leviticus 12 and Genesis 17.
When Paul writes that the law brings wrath, isn't it clear what law he has in mind? Romans 4:15 speaks about "the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs"
Compare 4:16.
At the end of the day, there's no biblical indication that we must be circumcised to be Christians. Women could not fulfill that command anyway and whether a male gets circumcised makes no religious difference in the eyes of God. That seems to be the teaching of Paul.
Paul's being all things is not the same as imposing something on Timothy.
I will reply more later, but the account does not suggest Paul imposed circumcision on Timothy. It was done to avoid stumbling Jews. Since Timothy was Paul's coworker, it made sense to circumcise him
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/acts/acts-16-3.html
Circumcised because of the Jews and he was part Jewish.
"because the whole principle of Gentile liberty was at stake." ? Evidence
I wasn't quoting him to make that point :)
The statement pertaining to Gentile liberty was made because of Titus' refusal to be circumcised as Galatians reports.
But it's tangential to my point about Paul's reason for circumcising Timothy, which is stated in Acts 16:3.
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/2465/D_Thiessen_Matthew_a_201005.pdf
I posted articles above that refute Thiessen: his position is highly unlikely in view of Romans 9:6ff and other factors.
Thomas Schreiner does not look too favorably on Thiessen's idea about Romans 2:28-29. I cannot quote his entire argument due to time and space, but if you're interested, see his developed argument in a recent commentary on Romans. Schreiner writes:
"Paul doesn't attack Jewish Christians in Rom. 2:1–29 (against Jewett 2007:26). He speaks against Jews who refuse to believe in Jesus Christ (rightly McFadden 2013:57–58). McFadden rightly notes that we must distinguish between the audience of the letter and Paul's rhetorical target.1 The gentile believers in Rome (along with some Jews) are the audience of the letter, but the rhetorical target is unbelieving Jews."
Also:
[1]"Hence Thorsteinsson’s (2003:165–231; see also Rodríguez 2014: 32–36; M. Thiessen 2014; 2016:54–70) notion that the Jew in 2:17–29 is actually a gentile fails even if the audience is entirely gentile (rightly McFadden 2013: 56n53, 58n61)."
Works by K.W. McFadden:
2009 “The Fulfillment of the Law’s DIKAIŌMA: Another Look at Romans 8:1–4.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52:483–97.
2013 Judgment according to Works in Romans: The Meaning and Function of Divine Judgment in Paul’s Most Important Letter. Emerging Scholars. Minneapolis: Fortress.
2015 “Does ΠΙΣΤΙΣ Mean ‘Faith(fulness)’ in Paul?” Tyndale Bulletin 66:251–70.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qvy2fLonbEgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=romans+McFadden+2013&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEzJ770tLsAhWHXsAKHe2FBAYQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=snippet&q=even%20if%20the%20audience%20is%20entirely%20gentile&f=false
Footnote 61
https://books.google.co.uk/books?redir_esc=y&id=cOxbRuMSMIgC&q=149#v=snippet&q=already%20has%20a%20jewish%20presumption&f=false
Page 149
https://www.oztorah.com/2008/07/jewish-attitudes-to-gentiles-in-the-first-century/#.X5b8joj7RQA
Obviously, I do not agree with everything on this page but it does have some useful information.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43048368?seq=1
So was Paul arguing against Jewishness or Pharisees?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3711437?seq=1
https://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/paulandscripture/FiskSynagogueInfluenceonPaulsRomanReaders.pdf
I make no new argument as I have not digested all of this yet but I thought I should post this so that you can see my line of investigation.
Post a Comment