tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post4087297441102078458..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Did Paul discourage Jewish Christians from keeping the Law?Mark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-82432998543595215382007-02-17T11:14:00.000-05:002007-02-17T11:14:00.000-05:00I should read some of the above-cited sources care...I should read some of the above-cited sources carefully before I venture too far out on a limb, but my offhand response would infer that since it was important to Paul that Gentiles be incorporated into the people of God <I>as Gentiles</I> (I almost said "precisely as Gentiles"), he would be equally insistent that Judaic believers should continue in the practices that define their own distinct identity.AKMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16776029549322473374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-26241639735788350352007-02-12T07:13:00.000-05:002007-02-12T07:13:00.000-05:00Thanks for the discussion, Mark and others. For w...Thanks for the discussion, Mark and others. For what it's worth, an article which has helped me is Richard Oster's "'Congregations of the Gentiles' (Rom. 16:4): A <BR/>Culture-based Ecclesiology in the Letters of Paul." Restoration <BR/>Quarterly 40 (1998): 39-52.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-38589251803356035922007-02-11T18:42:00.000-05:002007-02-11T18:42:00.000-05:00I tend to agree with the thrust of all that has be...I tend to agree with the thrust of all that has been said, and think it is important to appreciate that Paul went out of his way to avoid causing unnecessary offense to Jews.<BR/><BR/>Paul's highest priority was that people should receive Christ, and he wanted Gentiles to be accepted as EQUAL members of the faith community without requiring circumcision. Paul's circumcision of Timothy (a Gentile) did not compromize these principles, because it was not done to increase Timothy's status within the Christ-believing community or to gain him salvation. Rather, it was done to allow him to evangelize in the synagogues, and so was for the benefit of outsiders.<BR/><BR/>Paul's tactics were to adapt his message according to his audience. He gave his radical views only to those who were ready for it. To those who were under the Law, he became as one under the Law, so that he could win them (1 Cor 9:20). This explains why he circumcised Timothy (so that Timothy could be a Jew to the Jews). The same policy of accomodation is seen in his teaching on eating food sacrificed to idols: he writes, "Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved." (1 Cor 10:32). When he was among Gentiles Paul preached that Gentiles could be equal with Jews without being circumcised, but he did not preach this when he was among non-Christian Jews, for it would not have been expedient to do so. Of course, this led to confusion as to what Paul actually believed. In Galatia they concluded that he really believed in circumcision as the final step of conversion (5:10-11) and that his initial preaching of non-circumcision was just a ploy to please them (1:10) and thus draw them in.<BR/><BR/>When Paul was in Jerusalem (Gal 2 = Acts 15) he laid out the gospel that he preached among the gentiles, but did so privately in a confidential pre-meeting meeting with the pillars. He kept this message secret from the general population. This explains why the Acts 15 meeting with the general assembly could end so harmoniously: James got everyone to agree that Antioch could have Gentiles in the church, but no-one told them that those Gentiles were being given equal status with Jews. Paul and Barnabas kept a diplomatic silence about that, and let James do the talking. This issue came to a head only later in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14) and this confirms that the issue was dodged in Jerusalem.<BR/><BR/>Paul's collections can also be seen as an attempt to gain the acceptance of the Jerusalem believers.<BR/><BR/>In summary, I think that Paul felt the need to avoid causing unnecessary offense to Jews, and we see this in 1 Cor 9:20; 1 Cor 10:32; Acts 16:3; Acts 21:20-24, and in Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-14.<BR/><BR/>So, Paul would have certainly recognised that Christian Jews needed to circumcise their boys to avoid offending their Jewish neighbours. I don't know whether he felt that the circumcision of a son of Christian Jewish parents had theological significance.<BR/><BR/>Richard.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-44035576783941372242007-02-10T19:53:00.000-05:002007-02-10T19:53:00.000-05:00This question was explicitly raised on Corpus Paul...This question was explicitly raised on Corpus Paul some years ago in a discussion with Mark Nanos - the following link is near the beginning of the thread http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/20050512/005435.html<BR/><BR/>After another two years considering the question, I think it likely that Paul would not have insisted one way or the other except as circumstances required. So I do not find the circumcision recorded of him in Acts 16:3 to be out of character or inconsistent with the text attributed to him of Colossians 2:11.Bob MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.com