Hi Pappillion001, let's see how you are thinking. You originally state Paul was against the Law and especially circumcision, and I point out that he circumcised Timothy, and you come back and say that was just because Timothy wanted to be circumcised. Let me give you a little different take.
Since Timothy's mother was Jewish, he would have been considered Jewish, and his circumcision would have been REQUIRED for any fellowship with Jewish Believers. This was not the case for Titus, for he was a Gentile, and Paul fully followed the decision of the Acts 15 council where physical circumcision was set aside for Gentile Believers.
Hi Ken, I do appreciate your insight, but am still not convinced. I don't see how my answer differs. As I stated Timothy wanted to
This was obviously Timothy's desire. He wanted to follow Paul and preach, but he could not since to remain uncircumcised was to remain cut off from his people as decreed by God. He would have been excluded and not viewed kindly because it would seem as if he was rejecting Judaism by remaining so
I guess I just assumed it would be understood the in order to not be cut off from their people males had to be circumcised. Since Timothy's father was Greek he was not when he was 8 days old as God commanded.
Paul was preaching that it was not necessary before he was given permission. Both Acts and Galatians are clear that that council was because Paul was teaching that circumcision was not necessary and that the Law would not save people from God's Judgement.
It is also clear that the council did not truly think Paul was right. Their decision is what allowed Christianity to become a separate religion. Think about it. They say sure tell the Gentiles they do not have to follow what God commands from every Jew and you can continue to preach that, just not to any Jew. So all that has happened is more people are compelled to worship the God of the Jews, which will help reduce idolatry, which had always been a problem and improve relations amomg Jew and Gentile (that part didn't work out so well over time). Now you have two groups whose foundations are incompatible living under the same roof.
The argument put forth by Peter is that if Jews brought up from birth in the Law had a hard time with it, the Gentiles as adults would find it to much of a burden. What happens when something is to hard? You quit doing it and are often not happy about doing so when it is something you wanted. I can only assume the fear was that Gentile converts would eventually get discouraged and leave or become lax causing a repeat of past problems where Gods wrath was visited upon the Jews for not following his statutes.
When Paul came back to Jerusalem in Acts 21, there were thousands of Jewish Believers who had been told that Paul was teaching JEWS not to circumcise their children, and to forsake Moses and the customs (Oral Law). The reason Paul paid the expenses for himself and four others in the Rites of Purificaion, was to PROVE the rumors were false, and he actually was NOT teaching JEWS to forsake Moses, the circumcising of Jewish children, and the customs (Oral Law). And Acts 21:25 proves that the Jewish Believers did not require the same standard from the Gentiles as they themselves were under.
Now where did Paul preach? At times at the houses of followers as the Church grew, as synagogue's would not be open to them, but that would not be until well after he was established. He repeatedly tells of how he was in a local synagogue preaching the message of Jesus. So imagine someone standing in front of you saying there is no benefit to following the Law, that it in fact only makes things worse. That the only way to avoid Gods judgement is to profess your faith in Jesus as your lord and God, who atoned for your sins forever nor do you need to circumcise your children or have done to yourself. Followed by not you I meant the Gentiles outside. Yes they just accept Jesus and they get to share in everything God promised to you.
While the leadership was ok with two separate kinds of Jews, the congregation viewed converts as Jews and as Jews needed to do what God commanded. It would be upsetting to think of living the strict life of a Jew under the law, subjecting your sons to a serious operation only to be told that it isn't necessary and anybody can have all the benefits without all the hardship.
Your side question about the Rites of Purification...it was a ritual required for those defiled by coming into contact with the dead. The four who were under a vow apparently came into contact with the dead and were required to enter into this Ritual. In this Ritual, they would have to be sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer on the third and seventh days, and the seventh day would be their day of cleansing where they would then shave their heads (Num 6:9). Paul, in coming out of the dispora, would also be required to enter into the Rites of Purification as the custom required. So this is just a little info on the Rites of Purification.
But the attempt to placate the Jews failed because that was the only reason he did it and he did not make the vow. Custom allowed if someone would pay for or share the expense of the offering they could share also in the vow made by the one who made the vow. You are insinuating that Paul was performing a sacred rite because he wanted to. He did it because the Apostles told him the Jews were in a rage because of what he was teaching and that he needed to do something to appease them. They found 4 men who made their vows and told Paul to pay for it so he could share in the rite, thus showing he was observing the Law. Nobody bought it and they almost killed him for it.
Finally, concerning the authority the Body of Yeshua had in determining about circumcision for the Gentiles. Yeshua told His disciples that they could remit and retain sin, and that they could bind and loosen, and if they did, He would fully agree with it. Circumcision was loosened or remitted for the Gentiles, and this authority was likened to the authority the Priests and Levites had in Deu 17:8-13.
That is hard to accept as circumcision in the words of God was to be an everlasting sign of the covenant God made with Abraham. There are several conclusions that are possible from your position:
God said something that was not true.
God did not know that they would choose to overrule his commandment.
God did not mean what he said.
I am sure other conclusion can be reached, but I don't see any that don't contradict other strongly held beliefs concerning the nature of God. It is one thing to address situations that have already been so or to clarify ambiguity, it is something different to void statutes directly from the mouth of God.
I hope this helps to better clarify about Paul concerning his love and commitment for the Law. KB
Sorry, but the more I look at it the more evidence I find showing Paul clearly is teaching against the Law. He says it in Romans and in Galatians that I can recall and possibly in other letters as well. This line of thinking is consistent with him in what states over his life after his conversion.
How do you see him supporting the Law when he says things like this:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Gal 2:16-18
To me it is clear to Paul that the Law is not to be followed. I just don't see how this and other verses like it, not to mention that Christians don't in fact follow the Law that it can be reasoned that he was for it.
