Posted by Dinah on September 4, 2010, at 8:35:00
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-nhvurehyghen, posted by SLS on September 4, 2010, at 6:52:20
> Maybe you can correct me if my memory fails me. Paul was specific in his declaration that circumcision was no longer a necessary sacrament. However, it was this act that was precisely the covenant made between God and the Jews through Abraham.
I'm not the theological scholar I'd like to be, but I think it's important to remember that at the time this was written there were two parallel communities of early Christians. There was the community of Jesus' early Jewish followers. And there was the community of gentile converts that Paul had made his special mission.
Paul was responding to the Jewish followers of Christ saying that it was impossible to be a follower of Christ without following the Law, including circumcision. Paul wanted to bring as many gentiles as possible to the Christian faith, and considered certain requirements might make that difficult.
He wasn't in any way saying that the covenant of God with the nation of Israel was superceded. He was addressing an internal conflict with other early Christian leaders about whether gentile converts needed to be fully Jewish to be fully Christian.
Which is not to say that there aren't other verses from the Bible that are more problematic, in my eyes, than that one. And I've always personally preferred the message of James to the message of Paul. But given the struggle between various leaders among the followers of Christ, and the differing views of what it meant to be a Christian, I don't think that particular statement was meant to be applied to Jewish followers at all.
Or at least that's my recollection. I haven't made any serious efforts lately in reading about early Christian history.
poster:Dinah
thread:960265
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/961254.html