Well, today was an interesting sermon. I was mentally counting how long it would take Pastor to get around to the main point of today's scripture reading which was about circumcision. You could tell he wasn't comfortable with the topic especially in a mixed audience. It took him well over half the sermon before he mentioned it; Paul brought it up in the second verse.
In Galatians chapter 5 Paul flat-out tells his male readers that if they submit to circumcision they are signing up to follow the Mosaic Law which is impossible to keep (especially now that there is no Temple in Jerusalem). Apparently the millions of Jews around the world haven't got that message because Judaism hasn't withered away as one might have expected. Well, here it is: my pastor says that you can't be following the Law in its entirety because there is no Temple. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Doesn't seem to be bothering any of the observant Jews that I know. Judaism has gotten along just fine without a Temple and animal sacrifices for the last 2,000 years and if an outsider may be permitted an opinion, I think it would be a tremendous step backwards if the Temple were to be rebuilt and animal sacrifices resumed on the scale that they were in Biblical times. I'm sure PETA for one would have something to say about it.
Anyway Paul tells his (male) readers that if they allow themselves to be circumcised they are cutting themselves off from Christ. Then he turns around and says that it doesn't matter if one is circumcised or not if one is in Christ. Which is it, Paul? If it really doesn't make a difference, then why are you protesting against it so much? Especially when you wind up your argument that those who are pressuring your converts on the matter ought to go castrate themselves!
As a female sitting on the sidelines I find this somewhat amusiing. Because Paul's argument here is directed to males and only males. Female circumcision was not a part of the Biblical covenant. In fact, it was so far removed from the Biblical writers that they don't even mention it. I have to say that this is one thing I'm glad we women were excluded from. And you can rationalize all you want that Paul was using circumcision as a metaphor for other things (there is at least one Bible translation that I am aware of that doesn't even use the c-word when translating that passage) but I don't think so. If he had meant to use it as a metaphor he would have said so. He was talking about actual physical bloody circumcision, the removal of the foreskin from the penis. And if you think Vagina is a bombshell word, Penis is even more of one. Paul's male audience (and his female audience as well) knew exactly what he was talking about here. It's our modern Western culture that is squeamish about the subject of branding one's private parts to show religious affiliation.
However, there is a flaw in Paul's arguments regarding salvation and the Law and circumcision. They only make sense if one accepts the premise that there is a God and that there is an afterlife. What if one believes in neither? If there is no afterlife then there is no salvation nor damnation either. You are left with nothing to argue with.
In Galatians chapter 5 Paul flat-out tells his male readers that if they submit to circumcision they are signing up to follow the Mosaic Law which is impossible to keep (especially now that there is no Temple in Jerusalem). Apparently the millions of Jews around the world haven't got that message because Judaism hasn't withered away as one might have expected. Well, here it is: my pastor says that you can't be following the Law in its entirety because there is no Temple. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Doesn't seem to be bothering any of the observant Jews that I know. Judaism has gotten along just fine without a Temple and animal sacrifices for the last 2,000 years and if an outsider may be permitted an opinion, I think it would be a tremendous step backwards if the Temple were to be rebuilt and animal sacrifices resumed on the scale that they were in Biblical times. I'm sure PETA for one would have something to say about it.
Anyway Paul tells his (male) readers that if they allow themselves to be circumcised they are cutting themselves off from Christ. Then he turns around and says that it doesn't matter if one is circumcised or not if one is in Christ. Which is it, Paul? If it really doesn't make a difference, then why are you protesting against it so much? Especially when you wind up your argument that those who are pressuring your converts on the matter ought to go castrate themselves!
As a female sitting on the sidelines I find this somewhat amusiing. Because Paul's argument here is directed to males and only males. Female circumcision was not a part of the Biblical covenant. In fact, it was so far removed from the Biblical writers that they don't even mention it. I have to say that this is one thing I'm glad we women were excluded from. And you can rationalize all you want that Paul was using circumcision as a metaphor for other things (there is at least one Bible translation that I am aware of that doesn't even use the c-word when translating that passage) but I don't think so. If he had meant to use it as a metaphor he would have said so. He was talking about actual physical bloody circumcision, the removal of the foreskin from the penis. And if you think Vagina is a bombshell word, Penis is even more of one. Paul's male audience (and his female audience as well) knew exactly what he was talking about here. It's our modern Western culture that is squeamish about the subject of branding one's private parts to show religious affiliation.
However, there is a flaw in Paul's arguments regarding salvation and the Law and circumcision. They only make sense if one accepts the premise that there is a God and that there is an afterlife. What if one believes in neither? If there is no afterlife then there is no salvation nor damnation either. You are left with nothing to argue with.
