gmx wrote:robert j wrote:Paul’s stories in Galatians with Peter/Cephas, James and John were primarily intended to demonstrate --- for the benefit of his Galatians --- that these men were NOT concerned about circumcision for Gentile believers. If one does not grasp that concept, then IMO, trying to understand the letter to the Galatians is futile.
My distinction about "who was circumcised or not" was not about circumcision but about Jews as distinct from Gentiles... as in "an apostle to the circumcision". I'm sure it's not meant literally, that God meant apostles should attend circumcisions. My line is that Peter is accused of changing his behaviour based on who was circumcised, and my query was about how could someone who had experienced a risen Christ in the flesh and think it important enough to be in Antioch preaching the gospel to gentiles, be worried about such trivial matters?
Circumcision was very important for Paul and Peter , and was also very important for Abraham , and it was a tragic imposition for the bridegroom of Dinah.
It was very important for G-d , who tried to kill Moses for failing to circumcise his son , as reported in exodus 4:24-26 ;
On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the LORD met him and tried to kill him. 25But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’* feet with it, and said, ‘Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!’ 26So he let him alone. It was then she said, ‘A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.’
And it was also very important for the parents of baby Jesus, as reported in Luke 2:21;
Luke 2
21 After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.