No other gospel: the quarrel over circumcision
Must a non-Jew become a Jew, circumcised and law-keeping, to belong to God's people? Paul says that adding this one condition cancels the whole message.
Paul skips his usual thanks and opens in astonishment that his converts have turned to a different gospel. His defence is his own story: the message came to him by revelation, not from any man; the leaders in Jerusalem, the reputed pillars, added nothing to it and did not compel his Greek companion Titus to be circumcised; and at Antioch he opposed Peter to his face for withdrawing from meals with Gentile believers. Whoever accepts circumcision as a requirement, he warns, takes on the whole law and is fallen from grace.
- religious authority
- religious identity
- ritual
- religious law
- conversion
- testimony
- revelation
- integrity
- truth
- justification
Enter a dialogue
- Teachers arriving after you told your converts to be circumcised and so join God's covenant people. Weren't they simply taking the covenant with Abraham seriously?
- Your gospel, you insist, came by revelation and not from any human teacher, not even the apostles in Jerusalem. Why does its source matter so much?
- Peter, as you tell it, stopped eating with Gentile believers for fear of a stricter group. How can someone tell keeping the peace from betraying the truth?
- You wish that those unsettling your converts were cut off. Can a letter about grace afford that much anger?
- "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?" They began by trusting and now want the law added. Why is that addition a betrayal and not an improvement?