Bible Study Galatians 2

[yesha]

wavy,

The posts are getting pretty long here. Lets focus on one point.

Acts 16:3
3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
(NIV)

yesha wrote:
He was probably not circumcised because his father was Greek.

Then why was that mentioned?

The Jews would have known he was not circumcised because his father was a Greek?
I'm not sure what part of this isn't clear for you?

Do you suppose that Jews will listen to an uncircumcised person, who btw they would have believed (this teaching was probably around in that time) should be circumcised because of his mother. All they would see is a Jew who is in violation of God's covenant, thus a sinner. This would have been a major hinderance in advancing the gospel to Jews. For this reason, because of the Jews, not because of spiritual readyness to embrace law, who knew he wasn't circumcised because they knew his father was Greek, he was circumcised. To the Jews he became like a Jew to save some.

As far as criteria, the criteria is just like the criteria was with Abraham. After faith and growth. Timothy was ready to travel with Paul (a Torah-keeper) as opposed to Mark in the previous chapter.

How does your view fit the scripture that says he was circumcised "because of the Jews". Your 'because he was ready for Torah obediance' is quite different.

 

[wavy]

We'll keep it shorter than. Quick, easy answers.

The Jews would have known he was not circumcised because his father was a Greek?
I'm not sure what part of this isn't clear for you?

Well, you changed your view now. At first you said "he was probably not circumcised because his father was a Greek". Now you are saying this is the exact reason he was circumcised.

Maybe I misunderstood something, but forget it. I understand now.

Do you suppose that Jews will listen to an uncircumcised person, who btw they would have believed (this teaching was probably around in that time) should be circumcised because of his mother. All they would see is a Jew who is in violation of God's covenant, thus a sinner. This would have been a major hinderance in advancing the gospel to Jews. For this reason, because of the Jews, not because of spiritual readyness to embrace law, who knew he wasn't circumcised because they knew his father was Greek, he was circumcised. To the Jews he became like a Jew to save some.

If we read the next verse, we'll see they were not preaching to Jews at all. They were delivering the message from the previous chapter (about the "necessary things". These were for the believing nations.

So he wasn't trying to gain Jews. He was delivering the letter throughout many cities (Acts 16:4). So the Jews in that area obviously were not their focus because they would soon leave that area anyway. Their focus was not to "save some" Jews in that area which you have presupposed were hostile unbelievers which would reject Timothy...

How does your view fit the scripture that says he was circumcised "because of the Jews". Your 'because he was ready for Torah obediance' is quite different.

I did not say the passage is saying he was circumcised because he was ready for a Torah committment, which is what you are implying: that I omitted that part of the sentence and then added something else.

Not so. I'm saying this is why Paul allowed it to happen at that time based of the principle of Galatians 5:3. Based on this scripture, Timothy's faith was signed by circumcision, which would propose you are ready to obey Torah.

As far as "because of the Jews", the Greek word for "because" is dia, largely meaning and usually meaning "through" or "by". So it could mean Paul had Timothy circumcised through or by the Jews in the area because they knew his father was a Greek.

But again, the word dia can be translated as "because", in a few cases such as here:

Acts 28:2 And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.

This is scarce compared to how many times it is translated otherwise. I believe there are other Greek words that could have been used if this meant he was circumcised because of the Jews, meaning for them or because of what they would do because he wasn't. But let's say it does mean "because".

If his father being Greek prevented circumcision for Timothy, then Paul could have had him circumcised to show the Jews he was not just a anti-Torah pagan and that he walked "orderly and keepest the law": (Acts 21:24).

 

[yesha]

Well, you changed your view now. At first you said "he was probably not circumcised because his father was a Greek". Now you are saying this is the exact reason he was circumcised.

Maybe I misunderstood something, but forget it. I understand now.

His father being a Greek, not a Jew is the reason he was not circumcised. If his father was a Jew then he would have been circumcised.

If we read the next verse, we'll see they were not preaching to Jews at all. They were delivering the message from the previous chapter (about the "necessary things". These were for the believing nations.

Keep reading.

So he wasn't trying to gain Jews. He was delivering the letter throughout many cities (Acts 16:4). So the Jews in that area obviously were not their focus because they would soon leave that area anyway. Their focus was not to "save some" Jews in that area which you have presupposed were hostile unbelievers which would reject Timothy...

They probably went to the synogauges.

In the unlikely event that they visisted these town, and did no preaching there. It would still be unsavory for a Jew by birth to not be circumcised, even to the Christian Jews.

I did not say the passage is saying he was circumcised because he was ready for a Torah committment, which is what you are implying: that I omitted that part of the sentence and then added something else.

You are either manipulating this verse or ignoring it.

As far as "because of the Jews", the Greek word for "because" is dia, largely meaning and usually meaning "through" or "by". So it could mean Paul had Timothy circumcised through or by the Jews in the area because they knew his father was a Greek.

I think it's unlikely, as it's needless to say this. But I can't say it's impossible. yet ;)

 

[wavy]

Keep reading.

I did. I found that he was delivering the message.

They probably went to the synogauges.

In the unlikely event that they visisted these town, and did no preaching there. It would still be unsavory for a Jew by birth to not be circumcised, even to the Christian Jews.

This is is possible. However, this is speculation. And when I say this, I mean there is absolutely no connection to his being circumcised to gain Jews. You might say it had nothing to do with full Torah committment, but it must be applied. Galatians 5:3 must be compared. Otherwise, we have exposed Paul as a liar.

And why is it "unsavory" for a Jew not to be circumcised?

[quote:18ca9]
I did not say the passage is saying he was circumcised because he was ready for a Torah committment, which is what you are implying: that I omitted that part of the sentence and then added something else.

You are either manipulating this verse or ignoring it.[/quote:18ca9]

I don't see how based off my statement that you quoted...

[quote:18ca9]
As far as "because of the Jews", the Greek word for "because" is dia, largely meaning and usually meaning "through" or "by". So it could mean Paul had Timothy circumcised through or by the Jews in the area because they knew his father was a Greek.

I think it's unlikely, as it's needless to say this. But I can't say it's impossible. yet ;)[/quote:18ca9]

Which is why I repeat myself:

If his father being Greek prevented circumcision for Timothy, then Paul could have had him circumcised to show the Jews he was not just a anti-Torah pagan and that he walked "orderly and keepest the law": (Acts 21:24)

 

[yesha]

I did. I found that he was delivering the message.

Timothy was a companion of Paul, and did a lot more then deliver the message that gentiles don't need to keep the Law of Moses.

This is is possible. However, this is speculation. And when I say this, I mean there is absolutely no connection to his being circumcised to gain Jews. You might say it had nothing to do with full Torah committment, but it must be applied. Galatians 5:3 must be compared. Otherwise, we have exposed Paul as a liar.

The decision reached by the council was about gentiles not being under Law. The council didn't say anything about Jews, though I believe it is clear from Pauls letters that the same principals apply. The early Jewish Christians were still Jewish, and probably would struggle with the idea of a Jew not being circumcised. Jews would definitely not listen and would be distracted by such a thing. Galatians 5:3 is about being circumcised because one feels that they must live according to the Law to be righteous before God. If this is the case Jesus has no value to them, and they must obey the full law, because now that is their only way. If Timothy was circumcised to be saved by living under the Law, then he would be required to observe the whole law, and he would be alienated from Christ according to Galatians.

I don't see how based off my statement that you quoted...

Your reason for Timothy being circumcised was that he is ready for full Torah obedience. The text says that Paul decided he should be circumcised because of the Jews.

If his father being Greek prevented circumcision for Timothy, then Paul could have had him circumcised to show the Jews he was not just a anti-Torah pagan and that he walked "orderly and keepest the law": (Acts 21:24)

Yes, this shows the Jews that he kept the Law. Why was Paul concerned about showing the Jews that he kept the Law. To win them over to Christ - to "save some".

 

[wavy]

Yesha...

I'm sorry I cannot continue in this conversation. We'll get nowhere, obviously.

It just seems you give too many cop-out answers and cannot notice the hypocrisy and inconsistency and degradation you must put everyone through to prove the point.

The believing Jews were just too attached to the "law" to know that it was bondage...Why? I can't say. But it has to fit somehow in Paul's letters. If it doesn't, my theology falls apart.

I don't think you see it. You have turned Paul into a hypocrite. A lying sinner. Maybe, just like he deceived the Jews, he deceived you "gentiles" too. Maybe he only wrote to you that the Torah was bondage because he didn't want you to be as righteous as the Jews are because they keep Torah...

I mean, we can play this game all day. However, again, it's clear we won't get anywhere and it's also clear that Paul cannot get his message together according to what you're saying.

Peace.

 

[Georges]

To what extreme will the antisemite go to remove Judaism from the story? How in the world did Christianity (a sect of Judaism) get top billing? Ans...revisionist history. Reminds me of the history revision as practiced by the Democrates in this country......change what happened in history past to fit your agenda.

How many facts and how many times do they have to be displayed until it finally clicks? Replacement theology stinks....Apostolic succession stinks...Revisionist History stinks.
:roll:

 

[yesha]

Acts 15:10
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
(NIV)

Acts 15:28
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
(NIV)

The believing Jews were just too attached to the "law" to know that it was bondage...Why? I can't say. But it has to fit somehow in Paul's letters. If it doesn't, my theology falls apart.

It was not uncommon in Jewish language to refer to the law as a yoke. Why? because it portrays how one is under it/subject to it/a slave to it/ect... Whatever words you want to use. In the same text we see commands are referred to as burdens, as they are loads that must be kept. They may be light, but the language is still burden.

I don't think you see it. You have turned Paul into a hypocrite. A lying sinner. Maybe, just like he deceived the Jews, he deceived you "gentiles" too. Maybe he only wrote to you that the Torah was bondage because he didn't want you to be as righteous as the Jews are because they keep Torah...

First, this wasn't written by Paul. You obviously don't understand my view. I'm sure I could quote from a commentary from a Messianic Jew, and you would label him a Torah hater like you do essentially everybody else. As I said your views are not normal, as they nullify what's written.

I mean, we can play this game all day. However, again, it's clear we won't get anywhere and it's also clear that Paul cannot get his message together according to what you're saying.

I don't have any problem with Pauls message. It is people like the ebonites who believed that the Law was to be kept, that had issue with Paul, the difference being they could read what he was saying, and rejected it. You seem to turn it upside down and believe him as saying the opposite of his point. He clearly teaches we are not under law, but you can't accept that and must invent some other way of interpreting it to fit your views.

The is room for debate on whether or not Jews had to keep the Law, because all indicatates was that they did. But there is no debate on whether or not Gentiles must. And that is your viewpoint. Again my view is that as Christians we are free, even free to keep the Law, (which is kept when living by the Spirit) but not as slaves, but as sons. You believe we are not free to keep the law, but rather we must keep the law. My view is the Law points to Christ. Your's is Christ points to the Law. Your view is the same as the Judaists as far as I can tell. And Paul had none of it. It's like a Judaist using using what was directly written to oppose their views, as if it supports it. The result is turning every thing upsidedown such that 'not under law' become 'not under laws curses', and nullifies the very point made of not being under law.

 

[yesha]

To what extreme will the antisemite go to remove Judaism from the story?

Who are you calling an antisemite?

 

[Georges]

To what extreme will the antisemite go to remove Judaism from the story?

Who are you calling an antisemite?

Those who are antisemitic and there are many on Christian forums........if that shoe fits you.....to bad, if it doesn't then good for you.....

My question was "To what extreme will the antisemite go to remove Judaism?". Ans....History revision. Are you in that camp? If not...good for you....if so..............

A history revision, for example, is something along the lines of people claiming that the Holocost never happened. In the case of early Christianity, it is the denial that the early Christians still practiced Judaism and were Torah observant. It is rediculous to think that since Gentiles didn't dominate Churches untill the 100's, that the Jewish Christians gave up the Torah...The famous passage of Acts 21 didn't happen until the mid to late 50's....who do you think made up the Church before that time? If the Jewish Christian's weren't torah observant, the Jew's would have kicked them out of the Temple and Synagogues...an event that didn't happen until after the 120's.

 

[wavy]

First, this wasn't written by Paul.

I know it wasn't.

As I said your views are not normal, as they nullify what's written.

...

You seem to turn it upside down and believe him as saying the opposite of his point.

You have no proof to back up this untruth.

He clearly teaches we are not under law, but you can't accept that and must invent some other way of interpreting it to fit your views.

...

My view is the Law points to Christ. Your's is Christ points to the Law.

More untruth.

Anyway, I just had to justify myself quickly.

 

[cj]

How in the world did Christianity (a sect of Judaism) get top billing?

How in the world indeed?


Talk about a redundant arguement.

Georges,.... the world, Judaism, and Christianity are all just one and the same.

You would think a bright one like you would be able to see that.

Then again, revelation can be hindered by "knowledge".


In love,
cj

 

[Georges]

How in the world did Christianity (a sect of Judaism) get top billing?

How in the world indeed?


Talk about a redundant arguement.

Georges,.... the world, Judaism, and Christianity are all just one and the same.

You would think a bright one like you would be able to see that.

Then again, revelation can be hindered by "knowledge".


In love,
cj

Yeh...it was kind of a rhetorical question.....I know the answer...I just can't figure out how the S man was able to pull it off.....it was brilliant.

 

[cj]

Yeh...it was kind of a rhetorical question.....I know the answer...I just can't figure out how the S man was able to pull it off.....it was brilliant.

If by the "S" man you mean Satan, then the answer lies in what he does,... counterfeits.

Make no mistake, the world, Christianity, and Judaism can present a great outward appearance, but the source is not God.

In love,
cj