Galatians Circumcision

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gmsod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gmsod

Guest
So In Galatians Paul seems very concerned that the Galatian church had lost or changed the Godpel because they claimed one needed to be circumcised. I had a teacher who said that this meant that they distorted Paul’s message of the Gospel by adding works, namely circumcision. My question is: could this be applied to the Catholic Church requiring baptism from believers (and i expect most here to say no) and if so is that because something is required besides faith in JESUS, just not circumcision? I guess i just don’t know if Paul is disappointed that they were adding something unnecessary or that they added something at all to faith?
Thanks

GOD bless!
 
Last edited:
Jesus told them to baptize. Jesus did not tell them to circumcise.
 
Salutations
There was a big discussion on circumcision or not, between Peter and Paul. Circumcision is for Jews as part of their covenant. Adult gentiles weren’t going to be happy w that as part of conversion. The argument ended that circumcision was not necessary. The Jewish believers were still operating out of the Law.
Jesus made a new covenant. Circumcision is not the symbol of our conversion. It is Baptism, Communion and Confirmation. Studying Scripture.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
 
HI!

What you are doing is equating two distinct events: a) circumcision–this was the Old Covenant’s requirement of inception. Every male Israelite and anyone who wished to worship Yahweh God had to be circumcised as the means to enter into the Promise.

When St. Paul spoke against circumcision, he was speaking against a practice that was being introduced where Judaic converts, erroneously were requiring Gentile/pagan converts to first become Jew then convert to Christianity. So St. Paul warns that to go back to the Old Covenant’s mandate of circumcision would be to set Christ’s Grace aside.

Baptism is required by Christ as the inception into the Body… we can see this development transpiring right from the pages of the Sacred Scriptures as the newly converted Baptized themselves again for their dearly departed (as a means to include them in the Body of Christ); we also have secondary demonstrations as those who have received the Power of the Holy Spirit (the mini-Pentecost) are Commanded, by Peter, to be Baptized.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Since St Paul himself baptized believers, confirmed then through the laying on of hands, reconciled repentant believers, ordained men as presbyters through the laying on of hands, and celebrated the Eucharist with believers - I am thinking about those places in Acts that say he broke bread with them - or at least mentioned the celebration of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians, chapters 10 and 11), I don’t think he had a problem with those sacraments established by Jesus but rather he had a problem with the Galatians requiring additional “works.”
 
Interesting question. THANKS

But what you suggest is I THINK, an impossibility [you give far too much credit to the Catholic Church; who it would seem you agree Birthed the Bible. Still theswe particular teaching seems relevant here:

John 3: 5 " [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Matt. 28: 19-20 " [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

My Friend this not “the Church”; rather it is the GOD of That Church:grinning:

GBY

Parick
 
jcrichton said:
HI!

What you are doing is equating two distinct events: a) circumcision–this was the Old Covenant’s requirement of inception. Every male Israelite and anyone who wished to worship Yahweh God had to be circumcised as the means to enter into the Promise.

When St. Paul spoke against circumcision, he was speaking against a practice that was being introduced where Judaic converts, erroneously were requiring Gentile/pagan converts to first become Jew then convert to Christianity. So St. Paul warns that to go back to the Old Covenant’s mandate of circumcision would be to set Christ’s Grace aside.

Baptism is required by Christ as the inception into the Body… we can see this development transpiring right from the pages of the Sacred Scriptures as the newly converted Baptized themselves again for their dearly departed (as a means to include them in the Body of Christ); we also have secondary demonstrations as those who have received the Power of the Holy Spirit (the mini-Pentecost) are Commanded, by Peter, to be Baptized.

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
Great understanding and well articulated!

Thank you
 
Gmsod:
I had a teacher who said that this meant that they distorted Paul’s message of the Gospel by adding works, namely circumcision.
Click to expand...
Your teacher is reading Galatians through a Protestant “lens”. (Even if he/she is Catholic–Remember, Catholics get effected by Protestant viewpoints too.)

St. Paul in the early part of Galatians is contrasting faith versus works (works in the Old Covenant “works” of law sense) in the earlier portions of Galatians.

“Works” such as and especially circumcision is what is being contrasted to faith.

St. Paul is NOT contrasting faith versus works (in a new Covenant “grace works” sense).

But St. Paul knows the difference between mere works on your own, as opposed to GRACE works.

That’s WHY that same St. Paul, in that same letter to the Galatians can warn you about sowing in the flesh (empty works) versus sowing in grace or “sowing in the Spirit” (fruitful works which leads to eternal life).

Works that figure into your process of justification (something virtually all Protestants deny).

Protestants routinely reject grace workings as being part of the process of justification.

.
GALATIANS 6:7-10 7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
Click to expand...
.

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Last edited:
My question is: could this be applied to the Catholic Church requiring baptism from believers . .
Click to expand...
No. This could not be applied as such

(although SOME Protestants DO attempt to equate “works of law” such as “circumcision” with ALL works including works done in grace).
 
Last edited:
People should not underestimate what a watershed moment it was when the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem went along with Paul and others regarding circumcision as a requirement to become Christians- they agreed not to require it. This marked an official and irrevocable split with Second Temple Judaism.
In the heyday of the independent Jewish Kings, when they would conquer a territory the people living there had to either leave or convert. And by convert that meant male circumcision- without exception- and following the laws of the Torah.
So the Christians from that moment on were on borrowed time, and the Second Temple High Priesthood actively worked against them. This resulted in the executions of the leadership in Jerusalem and likely a causative agent in the Neronian persecutions in Rome- and other persecutions that we are not aware of. The Jewish aristocracy had great influence in Rome- and this was true even after the crushing of the Jewish revolt. Two of Titus’ best generals were Jewish- King Agrippa II and Tiberius Alexander.
 
Last edited:
Gmsod said:
My question is: could this be applied to the Catholic Church requiring baptism from believers
Click to expand...
The Church did not “add” this, Jesus practiced it and commanded it. Jesus never commanded that believers be circumcised.

The meaning of circumcision was that the recipient was committed to keeping
the whole law of Moses.
Gmsod said:
I guess i just don’t know if Paul is disappointed that they were adding something unnecessary or that they added something at all to faith?
Click to expand...
He was much more than disappointed! And he told them they were abandoning the faith he taught them by adding circumcision.
 
Thanks for the response! I’m a little confused about what you said

“To go back to the Old Covenants mandate of circuncision would be to set CHRIST’s grace aside”

How would it be setting aside CHRIST’s grace any more than baptism?
 
“To go back to the Old Covenants mandate of circuncision would be to set CHRIST’s grace aside”
.
How would it be setting aside CHRIST’s grace any more than baptism?
Click to expand...
Because they were using circumcision to Covenant themselves as a peoples, to God.

That’s fine for a mere “Sinai Covenant”. A mere Mosaic Covenant that began with Abraham, and continued at Sinai (see Genesis 17:9).

But these Old Covenants (and others) could not save you.

So people putting their hope in a non-salvific Covenant was ultimately fruitless.

The Old Covenant was but a SHADOW of the good things to come (see Hebrews 10:1).

THIS NEW COVENANT, is the necessary Covenant. The Covenant in the blood of Christ!
 
Last edited:
Acts 2:38-41. 3,000 were baptized. Acts 9:18 Paul was baptized. Read Acts 16:16-34. The prison guard and his entire family were baptized.

Jesus commanded it.

Baptism. It makes you Christian. If not, then you are a fan of Christ, but NOT a Christian. Someone has lied to you.

Consider: Belief, and baptism, make you Christian. Who is it, who that roams this earth and walks up and down upon it, that would teach that you do not need baptism, when our Lord specifically commanded it?

Who opposes Christ?

Yeah, him…
 
Last edited:
Gmsod said:
“To go back to the Old Covenants mandate of circuncision would be to set CHRIST’s grace aside”

How would it be setting aside CHRIST’s grace any more than baptism?
Click to expand...
Circumcision is entering a commitment to comply with the Law of Moses.

Baptism is being born again into His Kingdom, being joined to His One Body, the Chuch, by grace, through faith. Baptism is a washing of regeneration,where we are circumcised in the heart by the Holy Spirit.
 
Gmsod said:
So In Galatians Paul seems very concerned that the Galatian church had lost or changed the Godpel because they claimed one needed to be circumcised.
Click to expand...
Yes. Because that meant that they were seeking to be justified in accordance with the Mosaic Law.
I had a teacher who said that this meant that they distorted Paul’s message of the Gospel by adding works, namely circumcision.
Click to expand...
St. Paul was comparing the Law of Christ, which is the application of the Sacraments. It is called salvation by faith. To the Law of Moses, which meant following all the works required of the Law. Sacrifices of animals and other ordinances which Jesus Christ abolished.
My question is: could this be applied to the Catholic Church requiring baptism from believers (and i expect most here to say no) and if so is that because something is required besides faith in JESUS, just not circumcision?
Click to expand...
Baptism is the rite of faith in Jesus Christ. It is in Baptism that we profess our faith in Christ and He pours out His saving grace upon us, washing us of our sins and granting us new life.

Baptism replaced circumcision.
I guess i just don’t know if Paul is disappointed that they were adding something unnecessary or that they added something at all to faith?
Thanks
Click to expand...
St. Paul is disappointed that the Galatians, a gentile community, were being confused by the “Circumisors”. A group of Jewish Christians who did not want to let go of the Old Law, but wanted to add Christian faith on top of the Mosaic foundation.

In other words they wanted to hold on to all the Old Testament requirements and add the New Testament to that. That is not what Christ established. Christ fulfilled the Old and established the New.
GOD bless!
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
You, as well.
 
Hi!

The purpose of the circumcision was, in effect, to usher the Israelites/convert to Judaism into the “people” of God. The New Covenant made the Old Covenant’s requirements obsolete. I say that it is obsolete because it was pointing to the “Promise.” Christ, the God the Saves, is that Promise!

The New Covenant brought it’s own economy, one that is not pointing to Christ but moving and existing in Christ:
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. 24 God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth. (St. John 4)
5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (St. John 3)
16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. 18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (St. John 3)
12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. 13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (St. John 1)
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. (St. Luke 22)
Click to expand...
Now, the Great Commission is this:
19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (St. Matthew 28)
Click to expand...
It is Jesus Who Commands that all the nations be Baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; there cannot be a conflict between Baptism and Christ’s Grace as the Grace Falls upon those who become children of God and it is the Baptism that ushers them into the Body of Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top