Evangelical theology struggles to grasp any culture beyond itself. This applies to ancient Judaism as well. Evangelical theological understands Judaism as a theological enterprise, but fails to grasp the culture that said theology birthed; just like it fails to grasp its own.
-
Show this thread
-
The entire Jerusalem counsel was built on an issue that sprung forth regarding theologically informed ethnic supremacy. Issue: One must become a Jew in order to be accepted into family of God and inherit the benefits of God’s covenantal people. But what did it mean to be a Jew?
2 replies 4 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
To be a Jew in 1st century was to be both a descendant of a lineage, a theological system, & a practioner of a theologically informed cultural tradition. Circumcision & dietary laws transcended their original theological purpose & were an ethnic identity marker by 1st century.
1 reply 4 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Those who argue Galatians 2 has nothing to do w/ “ethnic supremacy” are finally showing their cards. In order to do that, you must be someone who doesn’t treasure ethnicity but rather seeks to strip it away thru some form of hyper-spiritualization that goes beyond The Word.
2 replies 3 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
Paul rebuked Peter because he joined the Jews who showed up in their posture of ethnic supremacy. This included various theological/culture practices and traditions. Paul saw it as out of step with the Gospel as all Christians are one in Christ thru faith not Jewish adherence.
1 reply 4 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
Paul begins Galatians by lamenting the fact that the church was “bewitched”. What were they bewitched by? A belief of theologically informed ethnic supremacy. The galatian heresy is not simply legalism. It’s legalism birthed out of ethnic supremacy- that *Jewishness* was Supreme.
2 replies 2 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @KyleJamesHoward
Disagree. This was not about ethnic supremacy. This was about Jewish circumcision over Christ’s circumcision. This was also not about legalism. Legalism is a false doctrine spread throughout Evangelical churches.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HisBrightFame
We can agree to disagree.
I think it’s about all of the above. To say it’s just about circumcision is overly simplistic in my view. It’s about so much more. Thanks for sharing your perspective!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KyleJamesHoward
I hate agreeing to disagree. I believe it was you who recently stated that “Disunity is the result of many necessary conversations never had.” The point was the circumcision.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HisBrightFame
I believe that. But Twitter is not the best platform for such weighting and complex issues. I’m thankful for Galatian commentaries that are coming arguing my point. It’s commonly understood by many scholars. Do you think Paul rebuked Peter over circumcision?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Circumcision was an element but it’s important to engage the why. What does circumcision signify? A much bigger issue, one that led to Paul rebuking Peter. I’m curious to why you conclude it’s just abt circumcision when there is so much more in the epistle being addressed.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.