jgreen44

In Galatians 5, the Pauline author has this to say about circumcision...

1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

In Acts 16 Paul circumcises Timothy to please some Jews.

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. (Acts 16)

What sense did this make? Paul's mission was to the Gentiles. So why, as a component of his mission to the Gentiles, was he suddenly so interested in pleasing some people who observed Jewish law? And to do so by circumcising a Gentile no less!

And exactly how was Timothy's circumcised penis supposed to help Paul's ministry? Did Timothy wear his foreskin around his neck in a little vial? Did Paul announce in every town that he had in attendance a Gentile whom he had circumcised? What other Jewish customs did Paul compel Timothy to follow?

Continuing with Galatians 5...

4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

So Paul was not trying to be justified by the law when he circumcised Timothy in Acts 16. He was just trying to please some people who observed Jewish law....which is exactly what Peter/Cephas did in Galatians 2.

Galatians 2

Paul Opposes Cephas

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

How is this any different from Paul compelling a Gentile (Timothy) into being circumcised because he was concerned about (afraid of?) some people who observed Jewish law?

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. (Acts 16)

13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

Are you getting your hypocrites mixed up yet? The above verse is from Galatians 2. It's Paul accusing Peter of being a hypocrite for acting like a Jew when he is around those who observe Jewish law and compelling Gentiles to do the same....which is the same thing Paul did in Acts 16.

Continuing with Galatians 2, wherein the pot, Paul, calls the kettle, Peter, black....

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel,

Or, "when I saw that they walked not uprightly"...

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly - To walk, in the Scriptures, is usually expressive of conduct or deportment; and the idea here is, that their conduct in this case was not honest."

http://bible.cc/galatians/2-14.htm

How honest was Paul being with Timothy when he made him believe he had to undergo circumcision in order to proselytize amongst the Jews? How honest was Paul being with the local Jews when he misrepresented Christianity to them by making it seem as though circumcision was a necessary Christian rite?

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

"According to the truth of the gospel - According to the true spirit and design of the gospel. That requires perfect honesty and integrity; and as that was the rule by which Paul regulated his life, and by which he felt that all ought to regulate their conduct, he felt himself called on openly to reprove the principal person who had been in fault. The spirit of the world is crafty, cunning, and crooked. The gospel would correct all that wily policy, and would lead man in a path of entire honesty and truth."

http://bible.cc/galatians/2-14.htm

As we see from Paul's circumcision deception in Acts 16, Paul, Mr. "all things to all people", was the father of wily Christian policy (i.e. being less than entirely forthright and honest).

I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Hey, didn't Paul live like a Gentile when he renounced circumcision in Galatians 5? And didn't he use his influence to force his protege, Timothy (a Gentile), to follow a Jewish custom when he circumcised him in Acts 16?

How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Unlike Paul's mission, Peter's mission really was to the Jews. Maybe Peter was training his Gentile missionaries to go out among the Jews. After all, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:32...

"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, that they may be saved."

I can understand, Peter, in his mission to the Jews, teaching Gentiles to be conscious of Jewish dietary concerns so as not to offend. But how was Timothy's uncircumcised penis going to offend anyone?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

Then, obviously, Paul compelled Timothy (a Gentile) to follow a Jewish custom because he wanted to please some people who observed Jewish law...just as Peter compelled Gentiles to follow Jewish custom because he wanted to please some people who observed Jewish law, the circumcision group.

So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Well, at least, Peter and Paul agreed on that point. Neither one of them were trying to be justified by works. They were both motivated by fear, a need to please others.

17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

How is it that Paul was not "rebuilding what he destroyed" when he circumcised Timothy? Peter used his influence to force Gentiles into following Jewish customs. Paul used his influence to force his Gentile protege, Timothy, into following a Jewish custom, circumcision. If Peter was "rebuilding what he destroyed" then so was Paul. If Paul's teaching here is applied to himself, then Paul is "a lawbreaker", a breaker of Christ's law.

19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.

Then Christ must also have a need to please people who observe Jewish law.

The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God,

Except when he circumcised Timothy.

for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value.

For Paul, circumcision seems to have some value out of Christ Jesus.

5 The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

That, and circumcising Timothy to please some people who observed Jewish law.

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth?

Yes, Paul. Please tell us. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth when you circumcised Timothy?

8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you.

So Paul was persuaded by Satan to circumcise Timothy.

9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be,

Right about now, that would be Paul.

9 will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?

Apparently, Paul caved in to those who observe Jewish law and circumcised Timothy because if he had not done so he would have been "persecuted".

11 In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

So Paul negated the atoning work of the cross when he compelled Timothy into accepting circumcision. Interesting.

12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Paul felt so strongly about the inadvisability of compelling Gentiles to follow Jewish customs that he wanted James, the brother of Jesus Christ, and the rest of the circumcision group from the Jerusalem church to castrate themselves for breaking this rule. Yet, Paul himself compelled a Gentile to follow the ultimate Jewish custom, circumcision.

Apparently Paul was not familiar with Matthew 7:5...

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Why does the author of Acts deviate so dramatically from the portrayal of Paul we get in Galatians? Was the author of Acts unfamiliar with Galatians?

Cesc

I believe that a few German or Scandinavian scholars propose that the author of Acts had no knowledge of the Pauline corpus at all.

simon kole

The issue in Acts is not the same issue as in Galatians.

In Galatians, the issue is salvation by faith alone, through free grace, no works of the law involved.
To require circumcision in addition to faith was to add works to free grace, and therefore to nullify free grace.
Paul calls it "falling from grace" into works as a means of salvation.
To Paul, this was anathema.

In Acts, the issue is not salvation, but merely accommodation, "becoming all things to all men" for the sake of gaining access among them to preach the gospel of salvation by faith alone, through free grace, no works of the law involved.

In Galatians, the issue was the gospel's basis of salvation.
In Acts, the issue was simply accommodation for the sake of access.

Ratel

How interesting that both Jesus' number 1 disciple and brother were so confused on soteriological matters that Paul, who had not the benefit of extensive one on one conversation with Jesus, needed to correct them. Hmmm.

stephan huller

But the author of Acts must have been familiar enough with Galatians in order to recast the condemnation of Peter into a reconciliation. Remember also that Galatians was the first epistle not for the Marcionites (ignore what the idiots say about this) but the Semitic Christian tradition of Ephrem and the author of the original anti-Marcionite treatise that develops into Against Marcion Books Four and Five (Theophilus of Antioch?). The point here is that this was not an insignificant text. It was placed first in this tradition because it was the most important letter. My assumption is that the Marcionites had 1 Corinthians first and called in 'to the Alexandrians' but that's just speculation. Placing Romans first might have been an act of compromise in the same way the fourfold gospel was 'splitting the difference' between the gospel of Marcion (or ur-Mark = a mix of Mark/Luke) and the original Diatessaron (which likely resembled a blending of Matthew and John). Not surprisingly Matthew and John are first and last and 'apostolic' in the strictest sense and Mark and Luke are devalued i.e. claimed to be written by people who never saw Jesus. But the same thing happens to Paul when I am not so sure the Marcionites developed a religion around someone who never saw Jesus.

To me at least it is obvious that the author of Acts had to have been aware of Galatians. The question is why doesn't he cite any direct material from the Apostolikon? The answer might be that in order to gain widespread acceptance of his text he might have had to avoid any of the controversies. Maybe he didn't know how to interpret the text. The point is that there is clearly knowledge of the central historical reference in the Apostolikon - the condemnation of Peter which also shows up in a different form in the Clementine literature.

jgreen44

And, therefore, Peter's act of accommodation in Galatians was sinful while Paul's act of accommodation in Acts was righteous.

Sheshbazzar

Yeah, but you just need to consider the relative gravity of these different situations, that being how much more socially distasteful and hypocritical it is for a Jew to be found avoiding eating at the same table with Gentiles, than it is to be one consenting to and advocating the whacking off the end of someone else's dick.
Apparently 'Paul' considers a Jew's conciencious abstaining from eating at a table of gentiles, to be of a far greater offence against 'faith' than that of his own willing compromise in support of whacking off gentile foreskins to appease (or to thereby decieve and trick) Jews.
What a slut.






eta. Actually that is not at all what I believe.
Paul, the real Jewish Paul, is innocent. In my view it was the latter church with its 'pseudo-Paul's' that totally fucked over, altered, interpolated, and 'Christianized' the original Paul's writings.





.

simon kole

The NT reports otherwise.

Toto

If you want to participate in the discussion here, please explain yourself a bit more, and provide citations.

What part of the NT reports "otherwise?" Are you claiming that Paul did have one on one conversations with Jesus? When was this?

stj

Might I suggest that the author of Luke/Acts was familiar with Galatians but chose to falsify the conflict between Paul and Cephas, in the interest of blending quarreling elements in the church of his day?