Your right the English translation does say "to be circumcised" and we all know that there is never any translator bias in the English translations.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Are you freaking kidding me?
- Thread starter rustywest4
- Start date
Your right the English translation does say "to be circumcised" and we all know that there is never any translator bias in the English translations.
Bro nothing in scripture even hints at Torah optional. Can you be saved and never fully walk in Torah absolutely you can and grace covers a multitude of sin. But the definition of sin is lawlessness. 1 John 3:4 so if not Torah then what law? The desire should be to follow Torah to the best of one's ability because of the love and grace that was bestowed on us.
John 14:15
"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
John 15:10
If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
I have yet to see any false doctrine that doesn't do at least some leaping around somehow - hopping here and there, grabbing a bit of this and a bit of that and overlay it as needed to establish a preferred point of view. What would you end up with if you did zero leaping re Gal 2:3 and just confined yourself to the exact meaning of the words in the verse? What would you end up with if you made no idea overlays and no additions cobbled together from elsewhere? What do the words on the page of themselves directly say without any leap and without any external-text overlay? The words on the page have their own meaning - we can't rightly make them say something else by introducing a thought that is not there - that would simply be eisegesis.
Just getting back to this, and have to say, this is eisegesis on a level thats staggering.
This isn't my fight, but I want to at least provide some additional resource information that will give each of you the ability to cut each other up kindly with sharp knives rather than brutally bludgeon each other with tetanus-encrusted pitchforks (I know: the phrase doesn't really exactly apply here, especially if you can't free your mind from the stubborn thought of circumcision being performed with such pitchforks, but I loved the sound of it when it crept into my ridiculous mind):
The literal translation from Greek to English of Galatians 2:3 per the CLNT is, "But not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, is compelled to be circumcised."
We could just say, "Period," at the end of that sentence, because just by itself that sentence speaks volumes, but we could also do what is generally recommended, and that is to contemplate its context, which includes when it was written, about whom it was written, why it was written and, perhaps most importantly, to whom it was written (this last one becomes exponentially important when considering the context within the context as the context continues; keep that in mind also when reading certain books, like James and the Peters, which were written solely to the Messianic Jews and not to the Gentiles).
The Galatian verse in question is preceded immediately by Paul introducing the information that he had returned to Jerusalem for the first time in 14 years and that he took Barnabas and Titus (a Greek, no less). He did so in order to share a revelation (from You Know Whom) with the Apostles who were charged with evangelizing to the Jews (occasionally referred to as The Circumcision), as opposed to Paul's evangel to the Gentiles (just as frequently referred to as The Uncircumcision).
He follows 2:3 with all this through to the artificial end of Chapter 2: "Yet, it was because of the false brethren who were smuggled in, who came in by the way to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they shall be enslaving us -- to whom, not even for an hour do we simulate by subjection, that the truth of the evangel should be continuing with you.
"Now from those reputed to be somewhat -- what kind they once were is of no consequence to me (God is not taking up the human aspect) -- for to me those of repute submitted nothing. But, on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they for the Circumcision -- only that we may be remembering the poor, which same thing I endeavor also to do.
"Now when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, for he was self-censured. For, before the coming of some from James, he ate together with those of the nations. Yet when they came, he shrank back, and severed himself , fearing those of the Circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that Barnabas also was led away with their hypocrisy. But when I perceived that they are not correct in their attitude toward the truth of the evangel, I said to Cephas in front of all, 'If you, being inherently a Jew, are living as the nations, and not as the Jews, how are you compelling the nations to be judaizing?'
"We, who by nature are Jews, and not sinners of the nations, having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh at all be justified. Now if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners is Christ, consequently, a dispenser of sin? May it not be coming to that! For if I am building again these things which I demolish, I am commending myself as a transgressor. For I, through law, died to law, that I should be living to God. With Christ have I been crucified, yet I am living; no longer I, but living in me is Christ. Now that which I am now living in flesh, I am living in faith that is of the Son of God, Who loves me, and gives Himself up for me. I am not repudiating the grace of God, for if righteousness is through law, consequently Christ died gratuitously."
Now I return you to your previously-scheduled slicing and dicing . . .
The literal translation from Greek to English of Galatians 2:3 per the CLNT is, "But not even Titus, who is with me, being a Greek, is compelled to be circumcised."
We could just say, "Period," at the end of that sentence, because just by itself that sentence speaks volumes, but we could also do what is generally recommended, and that is to contemplate its context, which includes when it was written, about whom it was written, why it was written and, perhaps most importantly, to whom it was written (this last one becomes exponentially important when considering the context within the context as the context continues; keep that in mind also when reading certain books, like James and the Peters, which were written solely to the Messianic Jews and not to the Gentiles).
The Galatian verse in question is preceded immediately by Paul introducing the information that he had returned to Jerusalem for the first time in 14 years and that he took Barnabas and Titus (a Greek, no less). He did so in order to share a revelation (from You Know Whom) with the Apostles who were charged with evangelizing to the Jews (occasionally referred to as The Circumcision), as opposed to Paul's evangel to the Gentiles (just as frequently referred to as The Uncircumcision).
He follows 2:3 with all this through to the artificial end of Chapter 2: "Yet, it was because of the false brethren who were smuggled in, who came in by the way to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they shall be enslaving us -- to whom, not even for an hour do we simulate by subjection, that the truth of the evangel should be continuing with you.
"Now from those reputed to be somewhat -- what kind they once were is of no consequence to me (God is not taking up the human aspect) -- for to me those of repute submitted nothing. But, on the contrary, perceiving that I have been entrusted with the evangel of the Uncircumcision, according as Peter of the Circumcision (for He Who operates in Peter for the apostleship of the Circumcision operates in me also for the nations), and, knowing the grace which is being given to me, James and Cephas and John, who are supposed to be pillars, give to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we, indeed, are to be for the nations, yet they for the Circumcision -- only that we may be remembering the poor, which same thing I endeavor also to do.
"Now when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, for he was self-censured. For, before the coming of some from James, he ate together with those of the nations. Yet when they came, he shrank back, and severed himself , fearing those of the Circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that Barnabas also was led away with their hypocrisy. But when I perceived that they are not correct in their attitude toward the truth of the evangel, I said to Cephas in front of all, 'If you, being inherently a Jew, are living as the nations, and not as the Jews, how are you compelling the nations to be judaizing?'
"We, who by nature are Jews, and not sinners of the nations, having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh at all be justified. Now if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners is Christ, consequently, a dispenser of sin? May it not be coming to that! For if I am building again these things which I demolish, I am commending myself as a transgressor. For I, through law, died to law, that I should be living to God. With Christ have I been crucified, yet I am living; no longer I, but living in me is Christ. Now that which I am now living in flesh, I am living in faith that is of the Son of God, Who loves me, and gives Himself up for me. I am not repudiating the grace of God, for if righteousness is through law, consequently Christ died gratuitously."
Now I return you to your previously-scheduled slicing and dicing . . .
Just as a matter of interest, how else would you translate it?
There is only one true gospel which saves both the circumcised and the uncircumcised, and we are warned against preaching any other in Gal.1:6-9; I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
It is worth pointing out that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised - περιτέμνω G4059, which seems to refer to the physical act of circumcision specifically. While every verse referring to "the circumcision" uses a different word - περιτομή G4061, which is derived from the first but distinctly different in order to refer to a class of people. @Pacman, I believe you are conflating two clearly different Greek words. This is not an English translation issue.
Bro obviously I can't prove this and that's why I included the word "likely"
It's interesting you bring in that word doctrine.
Proverbs 4:2 KJV
For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law. (Torah)
By the way that's not my assumption that law equals Torah in this verse its the actual Hebrew word.
Thank you Samuel and yes you are correct I was not aware that it was a different Greek word. This leads me to another point however. That word compelled is g315
Thayer's Definition
to necessitate, compel, drive to, constrain
by force, threats, etc.
by permission, entreaties, etc.
by other means
So this verse simply says he wasn't forced to be circumcised. Why would we assume that means he never was circumcised? It only proves it wasn't forced.
Based on the information provided by Samuel I will surrender that point. It may very well be translated correctly.
That’s ridiculous and you know it. Acts 15 clearly lays out that there is no need for gentile believers to follow Torah. You can claim it’s assumed but even that demonstrates that there is no great onus to hurry up and do it.
Galatians becomes a big problem if Torah is mandatory for gentile believers too. Paul is very clear that there is no need to get circumcised. Even if we go with the dominant Torah people interpretation that Paul is saying salvation does not come through circumcision, we’re still left with the fact that he told a bunch of gentiles not to worry about getting circumcised. He didn’t tell them to do it at some later point or explain that they had to do it for the right reasons even. He made a big deal about it not being necessary.
Torah observance has been transformative in my life and I would recommend it to anyone. But I can’t in good conscience claim it’s mandatory or even preferential. The Bible just doesn’t say that.
I agree. It does not say he was or was not ultimately circumcised. However it leaves us with him clearly not wishing to be circumcised at this stage (as if he freely chose to Paul wouldn't have anything to talk about, in context this passage only makes sense if Titus was not circumcised at the time.) Ocham's razor would suggest that the default understanding is that he most likely remained uncircumcised, and the burden of proof is upon anyone asserting that he was circumcised later. If he had ultimately been circumcised Paul would have been likely to mention this.
Just as a reference for anyone in the USA rethinking this or beginning to realize we ARE a bit of an anomaly. This page has links to policy statements on circumcision from the respective medical associations of all English speaking nations.
How do we know that this is the difference? My Bible didn't come with diagrams.
I was talking about Philippians actually, the Greek version.
And yet same Paul to the Corinthians also said...
And he also refused to circumcise Titus...
So why the difference?
Notice he didn't say he did it because of the law, or to follow the command, but because of the Jews. Since they knew his father was Greek they'd know he wouldn't have had him circumcised at birth. In other words, it was an 'become all things to all people' approach. Since it meant nothing, doing so overcame a hurdle to the spread of the Gospel. But he would later refuse to do so in the case of Titus because of the controversy with false brethren trying to bring them back into bondage of the law; in this case doing so would have sent the wrong message.
Well, in the case of circumcision anyway, 1 Cor 7:17-19 is more than a little hint. Not only did he ordain in all the churches not to become circumcised, but notice how he says it...
He didn't consider circumcision to be included in 'keeping the commandments of God'.
Man! That was some awesome popcorn! What ultimately convinced me to not go ahead and have my son(s) circumcised, was Galatians 5:1-12. Verse 12 certainly indicates Paul's outrage at the doctrine of circumcision. Now I like my own circumcised member, but since it happened in my infancy, I don't have any memory of it not being that way, but I will nonetheless encourage my boys to do so some time before their wedding day, and no sooner. I find it ironic that the original stated reason in American medical history for doing this procedure, was the desire to discourage masturbation, because it seems to me that if anything, not having that hindrance in place, would make sexual stimuli more enjoyable, but again, I cannot speak from experience.
Now that we have thoroughly derailed the original thread, I would suggest these postings get moved to a new thread.
Now that we have thoroughly derailed the original thread, I would suggest these postings get moved to a new thread.
Now this ^^^ is a fascinating point. Fascinating!