புதன், 25 செப்டம்பர், 2019

#502 *கேள்வி* In Galatians 2:3 Paul says Titus was not compelled to be circumcised... where as in Acts 16:3 same Paul did circumcision for Timothy... Why is this contradiction? Why was he inconsistent...?


#502
*கேள்வி*
In Galatians 2:3 Paul says Titus was not compelled to be circumcised... where as in Acts 16:3 same Paul did circumcision for Timothy...

Why is this contradiction? Why was he inconsistent...?

*பதில்*

Paul uses every available means to increase the opportunity to teach the gospel.

In order to teach the Jews, he lived in accordance with Jewish teachings and customs. Likewise, when Paul lived among the Gentiles he followed Gentile customs as far as he could *without violating the laws of Christ* so the Gentiles whom he was striving to reach would find it acceptable to listen to the message he was bringing.

Did Paul follow the laws found in the first five books of the Old Testament? He did not do so because it was required but because many of the laws could be followed without violating the laws of Christ. Yet at the same time, Paul strongly taught that those laws were not binding on Christians.

Mosaic law requiring circumcision. Before Paul brought Timothy among the Jews, he had him circumcised. "Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek" (Acts 16:3).

Paul did not do it because God required circumcision under the law of Christ. He merely did it so Timothy would be found acceptable among the Jews in the region he would be preaching. As Paul later argues, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters" (I Corinthians 7:19).

Because of the change in laws, the law of circumcision which was an absolute requirement became something of *no significance*. Since it did not matter whether a person was circumcised or not, Paul found it convenient to have Timothy circumcised in order that Timothy *would be accepted in the Jewish community*. Yet Paul *adamantly refused to have Titus circumcised*. "Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised" (Galatians 2:3).

In fact, Paul faced down those who taught that such a thing was necessary, "to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Galatians 2:5).

Later, Paul said this about circumcision: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:1-4).

Such teaching is contrary to what the Law of Moses taught. If Paul was living by that law, he had violated it by his teaching that circumcision was unnecessary.

Hence, Paul kept Mosaic laws when it was convenient and it suited his purpose, but he did not follow the law of Moses because that law had come to an end.

"Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God" (Romans 7:4).

What law was Paul referring to? Just a few verses later, Paul illustrates the law he had in mind. "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet"" (Romans 7:7).

Paul quotes the last of the Ten Commandments. It was this law that had come to an end in order that it might be replaced with a greater law -- the law of Christ.

Few more points to note :

Acts 16:1-3 says, Paul came also to Derbe and Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the *son of a Jewish* woman who was a believer; but *his father was a Greek*. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the *Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek*.

There are three differences between the Timothy situation and the Titus situation.

1) Titus was a pure Greek (Galatians 2:3). Timothy was born of a Greek father and a Jewish mother. According to 2 Timothy 3:15, from childhood Timothy had been taught the Old Testament scriptures. In other words, his Jewish mother brought him up as a Jew. But his Greek father had not allowed the circumcision. For Titus the pressure was to become Jewish. Timothy was already very Jewish by race and by training. For him to be circumcised would not have had the implication of moving from Gentile status to Jew status.

2) The people Paul resisted in Galatians 2:3-5 were false brothers. The Jews to whom he catered in Acts 16:3 were not even Christians. The pressure in Galatians 2:3-5 was from professing believers upon another believer to perform a work of law in order to be accepted. But Acts 16:2 says Timothy was “well spoken of by all the brethren at Lystra and Iconium.” No Christians were pushing for Timothy’s circumcision. Rather it was “because of the Jews that were in those places” (16:3) that Paul had Timothy circumcised. “Jews” is used over 85 times in Acts and almost without exception refers to unbelievers. And here they appear to be distinct from “brethren.” So it appears that Timothy’s circumcision was not motivated by “Christian” pressure from within but by a missionary strategy from without.

3) Titus was a “test case” in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1), but Timothy was to be a constant travel companion (Acts 16:3). Therefore, in Titus’ case a clear theological issue was at stake. But in Timothy’s case, what was at stake was how unbelieving Jews might best be won to Christ. So just as Christian freedom caused Paul to resist Titus’ circumcision, this same freedom allowed him to remove the stumbling block of Timothy’s lack of circumcision. Paul applied his principle from 1 Corinthians 9:20, “To the Jews I became a Jew in order to win the Jews.”


*Eddy Joel*, PhD
Preacher – The Churches of Christ
Teacher – World Bible School
+968 93215440 / joelsilsbee@gmail.com 

* கேள்வி & வேதாகம பதில் Whatsapp (Locked) குழுவில் இணைய:
புதிய 4ம் குழுவின் லிங்க் : https://chat.whatsapp.com/LDFydae8QOL2ItKGgYSYXq

** அணைத்து கேள்வி பதில்களையும் காண :  https://joelsilsbee.blogspot.com/search/label/Bible%20Questions

** வீடியோ செய்திகளுக்கு YouTube Channel Subscribe பண்ணவும் : https://www.youtube.com/joelsilsbee

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Print Friendly and PDF

கருத்துகள் இல்லை:

கருத்துரையிடுக