Acts 21 vs. Galatians and Corinthians. Did Paul live according to the Jewish Law?

Question

Acts 21 seems to show Paul participating in a Temple ritual to demonstrate that he himself lived "in obedience to the law" and that there was no truth in reports that he told Jewish Christians not to circumcise their sons.

• The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present... Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

In his own letters, however, Paul is adamant in his rejection of circumcision:

• In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6)

• if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. (Galatians 5:11)

Regarding his own practice he said things such as

• To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. (1 Cor 9)

However, in Acts 16:3 we read that

• Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.'

Timothy was as Jew because his mother was Jewish but he had apparently not been raised as one [at least not strictly so] because he was not circumcised, and his father was a gentile. Did Paul really have him circumcised? Did he do it just to placate his opponents, or did he think that his teaching against circumcision applied to gentile Christians but not Jewish Christians.

Can Acts 16 and 21 be reconciled with these teachings of Paul in Galatians and Corinthians? Did he indeed live as a practicing Jew as Acts 21 implies, or was he doing so in Jerusalem but not in Corinth and Antioch? Also did he or did he not tell Jewish believers that they should not circumcise their sons?

Answer 1

This is just about understanding Paul's theology -- which became the foundational theology of Christianity, which is the theology of the cross. If you understand the theology, you will understand what Paul did and did not do.

Summary of Paul's view on circumcision and observances

Galatians 2:16–3:3

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (KJV)

In this theology, you are dead - you are crucified with Christ -- and the life that was yours is now Christ's life. Your identity, your righteousness, your standing with God -- all come from Christ. The only observances or works that we need to do is to be crucified with Christ - to give up our earthly life by reckoning ourselves dead, to take up our cross and despise the flesh, so that Christ lives through us as eternal treasure in corruptible jars of clay.

Colossians 3:2–4

2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

In particular, all the requirements of the law from performing animal sacrifices to being circumcised or observing the sabbath are fulfilled by Christ living in you. It is not just the even numbered commandments or half the observances, but all the requirements are already satisfied. Note that Paul is not saying that circumcision is not an ordinance of God. But that Christ is the one who meets the requirement.

In that case, anything you do to try to fulfill the law with your own efforts is evidence that you despise the cross, because you believe that in this one area, you are not dead and still have some work of the flesh yet to do. That there is some hole or gap in Christ's sacrifice that requires you to resurrect yourself, climb down from the cross, and run around to accomplish some work in the flesh. And if you think about it, it really is quite insulting for someone to say, yes, that's great that God gave his son, but what will put me over the top is not eating a ham sandwich. That is the one thing Christ didn't fulfill.

Note that Paul's theology is much more involved, I gave the 101 version. Paul argues that the law itself kills us, as none of us can keep it. Once we are killed, the law does not apply to a dead man. Here Paul is pointing out that the purpose of the law is to teach us, and once the lesson is learned, we are left with the clear knowledge of our own death and inability to keep the law. In that point of utter hopelessness -- the "horror of Great Darkness" -- that is when Christ's mercy is seen. This was a theme of Luther's. Then Christ comes along to revive us by giving us his life (not resurrecting our own life, but receiving his life). This is what it means to be on the cross, as we see ourselves dead, Christ lives in us. All of this is "seen" through faith. Thus we are dead by the law, but made alive by Christ.

Answer to the question

Back to the question, Paul was very clear that observance of the law is not only useless, but can be a hindrance to the faith.

Galatians 5:2–3

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

But at the same time, he (and Timothy) made those token observances required in order to gain entrance to synagogues where he could teach and preach the gospel. But after his conversion, these observances weren't made to fulfill the law, but to gain entrance.

Galatians 5:6

6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

So this is a distinction about motivations. If he needed to chop off a finger to preach the cross, he'd do it, so a little foreskin was a a small price to pay. If a Nazirite needed a donation so that people would listen to him, he'd throw some coins at the Nazarite.

But just because he was willing to jump through some hoops doesn't mean he tolerated those that taught circumcision was still required by God of believers, either jews or greeks. Paul had enormous words of condemnation and ridicule for them e.g. he said "Let them be accursed" (Gal 1.8) and elsewhere, "I wish they'd cut the whole thing off!" (Gal 5.12)

Appendix on Synagogues and the role of Pharisees in Paul's day

If Paul is only doing some token observances to gain entrance to synagogues, this would not work if the synagogue was controlled by strict Pharisees that required full observance. Therefore for the above argument to make sense, we need to believe that there were synagogues that would accept token observances (and for that matter, that would accept Christians meeting in them). So let's dig into what is known about first century synagogues.

Originally synagogues weren't buildings, but groups of people:

The origin of the synagogue is shrouded in mystery, though most scholars would place its beginning in exilic times [...]

During Second Temple times the term “synagogue” referred both to a group of people and/or a building or institution. Although these notions are not mutually exclusive, it is quite probable that at its inception the synagogue did not refer to an actual building but to a group or community of individuals who met together for worship and religious purposes

Despite the fact that the oldest synagogue inscriptions come from Egypt, we have no archaeological documentation of what they might have been like.[..] it would seem, it was about a hundred years after the destruction of the Temple that the synagogue as building began to emerge as a central feature of Jewish communal life(1)

And specifically in Palestine, there is data to support the notion that most Synagogues were local governing bodies first and houses of worship second:

Richard A. Horsley argues that the synagogue, according to the gospels and early rabbinic literature, denoted a village or town assembly. This assembly met regularly and served primarily as the local governing body. Thus worship was secondary, and the notion of a building to house this assembly was decidedly tertiary. Since the Pharisees did not belong to these assemblies, Jesus’ anti-Pharisaic rhetoric shows him siding with local villages against outside, Pharisaic influence.(4)

Thus the first synagogues were just local groups of jews meeting together - no more, no less. They would be controlled by the pharisees only to the degree that the Pharisees controlled the local jewish community. That is, only a minority of such diaspora synagogues would be so controlled during the period of Acts in question, which is what allowed Paul to preach in and convert many jews in synagogues as part of his ministry, whereas it would be unlikely that Paul could do this if that synagogue was controlled by Pharisees. See, e.g. Acts 13:

Acts 13:14-16, 42–44

14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. 15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on. 16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience. [...]

42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. 44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Notice that it says "the rulers of the Synagogue" suggesting that this was a meeting of local jewish community leaders. It does not say "the rabbi".

But that's just one example, can we determine whether Synagogues were controlled by pharisees from other sources? Yes, for example looking at the architecture of synagogues that were discovered, we see examples of images and sculptures that were rabbinically forbidden, and thus would not be allowed in a Synagogue run by pharisees. This evidence is summed up by Levine(2):

The sages[Pharisees] were undoubtedly a factor in synagogue life that probably tended to increase in the course of late antiquity. Nevertheless, they certainly were not in control of the affairs of that institution, neither in its administrative-political realm nor in its religious-liturgical dimension. To put it very simply, on the basis of rabbinic sources alone there is no way we could have imagined the synagogues as archaeology has uncovered them.

Moreover some Synagogues were discovered with pictures of Greek gods - e.g. the god Helios in this fourth century Synagogue in Tiberius, consistent with the view of the synagogue as a local meeting place of jewry rather than an institution of orthodox rabbinical practice:

What about pre AD 70? Given the dearth of synagogues, we look for other architectural features, again searching to see whether the building is in line with Pharisaic regulations. In his study on ritual baths, Benjamin Wright concludes(3):

One initial and very critical problem is the extent to which rabbinic literature, primarily the Mishnah, can be used as evidence for pre-70 CE Jewish practice. Although it is almost obligatory to note the difficulties connected with using the Mishnah as a witness to pre-70 [...] recent discussions have suggested that even in their own periods the sages were (a) probably not very numerous and (b) probably not able to compel significant numbers outside of their own circles to comply with their interpretations of Jewish Law. For the pre-70 period the legal regulations of the Pharisees pose a similar problem, and there is much disagreement over their particular interpretations, their influence among other groups of Jews, and their continuity with the rabbinic sages. But even if one could securely date certain rabbinic regulations to the pre-70 period, it is not likely that they would have been any more influential at that time than during the flourishing of the rabbinic sages who compiled them. Nevertheless, in some quarters these rabbinic rules seem to be given a sort of interpretive hegemony over the physical remains.

And also we can examine contemporary textual references:

Cohen’s contribution to this volume analyzes the evidence from the New Testament and other early Christian writings. He finds that none of these texts contain any unambiguous evidence indicating that the Pharisees or the Rabbis were considered the leaders of synagogue worship.(4)

I could give many other scholarly examples (5, 6), but the bottom line is that Rabbinic judaism as understood in the Talmud is a much later development than what happened during the ministry of Paul. Christianity, in general, is a much older religion that rabbinic judaism. During Paul's time, the pharisees were one sect among many sects and among hellenized jews, all living together, with many Christians meeting in local synagogues, especially in the diaspora but also in Palestine.

You will get an incorrect picture of the state of jewish life if you read the Talmud or mishna and assumed it described binding regulations that were practiced by a majority of the jewish population at the time. It was not until much later that that the descendants of the pharisees would seize control of jewish diaspora life, and even then, many of the rules and practices developed in the Talmud would be a surprise to the pharisees of Jesus' day, who at best would be described as a proto-rabbinical sect rather than as what we understand to be rabbis in the middle ages when the Talmud was completed and its dominant interpretations finalized.

Rabbinic judaism for the most part dates to the medieval era and was never given the opportunity to try to fulfill the law, nor can we backproject the talmud to the era of first century Christianity and use it to understand contemporary jewish objections to Paul's ministry: the primary reason why Christians were expelled from many synagogues was that local jewish leaders felt their power threatened, rather than any love for or adherence to, pharisaic interpretation of the law. We must avoid what Wright calls the "interpretive hegemony" of assuming that there were large numbers of pharisees following the mishna in Paul's day and enforcing those requirements on the population or on those who attended the Synagogues.

---

1. David Noel Freedman, ed., “Synagogue,” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 251.

2. Lee I. Levine, “The Revolutionary Effects of Archaeology on the Study of Jewish History: The Case of the Ancient Synagogue,” in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, ed. Neil Asher Silberman and David Small, vol. 237, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 185.

3. Benjamin G. Wright III, “Jewish Ritual Baths—Interpreting the Digs and the Texts: Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism,” in The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, ed. Neil Asher Silberman and David Small, vol. 237, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 192.

4. Paul V. M. Flesher, “Review of Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress Edited by Kee, Howard Clark, and Lynn H. Cohick,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures: Volume 3 (2000–2001).

5. Lee I. Levine, “The Nature and Origin of the Palestinian Synagogue Reconsidered,” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 436.

6. Eric M. Meyers and Mark A. Chancey, Alexander to Constantine: Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, ed. John J. Collins, vol. 3, The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2012), 165.

Answer 2

Starting with the Acts 16 event of circumcising Timothy, understanding why Paul did that will clear up some misunderstandings about points in Galatians.

Acts 16:1-5 indicates that Timothy's Greek father was neither a convert to Judaism nor a believer in Christ. Timothy's mother (as also shown in 2 Tim.1:5) had faith in Christ. Regarding Acts 16:3, regarding Paul circumcising Timothy:

"As a matter of expediency so that his work among the Jews might be more effective. This was different from Titus' case (see Gal.2:3), where circumcision was refused because some were demanding it as being necessary for salvation." NIV Study Bible, 1987 ed. footnotes p 1642

This explains the Galatians 5 points in the question, and shows that Paul was being entirely consistent with this matter. Paul really had Timothy circumcised, as you ask, but the critical point is that that was to facilitate the spread of the gospel among Jews who would otherwise have been stumbled at this non-Jewish young man who they all knew not to have been circumcised. Now that he was circumcised, that impediment to hearing the gospel was removed. Yet Timothy was not circumcised so as to be justified by law; submission to the OT law could not be selective, as Paul said in Galatians 5. As the Study notes point out:

"...gaining God's favour by observing the law and receiving it by grace are mutually exclusive (see 2 Pet.3:17)" Ibid. p 1752.

Paul always respected the Jewish law and was sensitive to how Jewish people viewed the Christian gospel in relation to the law. That was why he got Timothy circumcised, but refused it for Titus. The same principle applied to the situation in Acts 21. An urban myth had been spread around, that Paul was urging Jews to forsake Moses, saying they should not circumcise their sons, nor to walk after the customs. Paul dealt with that latter false charge by supporting four men who had taken a vow. He paid for their sacrifices required at the end of their period of purification, and he also purified himself along with them.

Unfortunately, shortly before the seven days were ended, Jews from Asia saw Paul in the temple and stirred up a riot, based on misinformation (that Paul had brought Greeks into the temple and had polluted the holy place.)

Interestingly, the Holy Spirit had shown earlier that Paul would be bound in Jerusalem and handed over to the Gentiles - Acts 21:10-13. That's just what happened here.

But, back to Acts 21, before that riot happened: the other need was to make clear to Gentile converts to Christ what was, and what was not required of them, with regard to the law (vs. 25). This takes us back to Paul and Timothy's circumcision, shortly before which the apostles in Jerusalem were led by the Holy Spirit to issue this decree to Gentile Christians (Peter speaking in Acts 15:19-21 & 28-29):

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turning to God, but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

This was what Gentile believers were not to do - so as not to stumble Jews. Notice how circumcision is not in that list of necessary things? This was the Christian way of being respectful of Jewish law and sensitivities and customs. This was to facilitate the spread of the gospel. This decree was designed to pour oil on troubled waters, to enable Jews and Gentiles to come together in Christian fellowship. It was meant to show that circumcision was no longer the important 'thing'. As Paul passionately declared, it was more important not to make your brother stumble than to stick to your rights (Romans 14:13-23).

But in the next chapter (16) Paul circumcised Timothy when in Lystra. The very next verse (4) says: "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." This was Paul being respectful of the law, and being aware of Jewish sensitivities within the Church. If anyone was liable to stumble due to a Christian not being circumcised in that era, it was better that he be circumcised. After all, circumcision was not included in the list of things to be abstained from. The essential point was that the newly circumcised Christian was not now bound to observe every detail of the Mosaic law. His circumcision was purely a gesture for the benefit of Jews with a weak conscience.

The abstentions in the Jerusalem decree were to both prevent Christian Jews from stumbling, and to win over Jews to the Christian faith. Jews seeing Christians eating blood, or being polluted with idolatry, or fornication would be revolted. But if a Gentile Christian getting circumcised would help promote the gospel, fine. That is why the Bible nowhere says that all Gentile males converting to Christ must be circumcised. It shows the opposite, that circumcision has nothing to do with a person's salvation. It is spiritual, inward 'circumcision of the heart' that all Christians undergo, at conversion, by the Spirit (Romans 2:29).

So, to answer your main question, Paul lived according to the law of Christ, which is the law of faith, the law of the spirit of life in Christ - see Romans 3:2 & 5 & 20 & 27 & 31; 6:14; 8:2; 10:4; 13:8. That included being respectful of the law, which Christ had fulfilled, and being sensitive to Jewish sensitivities. 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 (which you partially quote) is key to keeping the balance here. Verse 23 needs to be added: "And this I do for the gospel's sake".

Answer 3

In short, no. Paul did not live according to the Law but he did follow some of the customs at times.

As noted in the question, Paul did follow thru with ritual cleansing in Acts 21. But why? In the topic of "Vow" in the Insight on the Scriptures, the subheading Paul's Observance of Law as to Vows gives us some understanding:

The apostle Paul made a vow, whether a Nazirite vow or not is uncertain; also, whether he had made the vow before becoming a Christian is not stated. He may have concluded the period of his vow at Cenchreae, near Corinth, when he had his hair clipped (Ac 18:18) or, as some believe, when he went to the temple in Jerusalem with four other men who were completing their vows. However, this latter action was taken by Paul on the advice of the Christian governing body to demonstrate that Paul was walking orderly and not teaching disobedience to the Law, as rumored in the ears of some of the Jewish Christians. It was common practice for a person to pay for others the expenses involved in the ceremonial cleansing at the expiration of the period of a vow, as Paul here did.​—Ac 21:20-24.

Since Paul had made a vow to Jehovah God, he was following thru with that vow in accordance with Jesus' words in Matthew 5:33-37. Furthermore, the above paragraph brings out that Paul was following the advice of the elders of Jerusalem "to demonstrate that Paul was walking orderly and not teaching disobedience to the Law, as rumored in the ears of some of the Jewish Christians."

Paul himself acknowledged that the Law given by Moses was no longer a requirement for Christians. (Hebrews 7:12, 8:13, 9:15; Colossians 2:14) So why did Paul continue to observe some of the Law rituals?

Some of those observances were in effect mandatory for all as noted in the article quoted above::

Consequently, the temple and the services carried on there were not despised by Christians, or looked down upon as wrong. They were not idolatrous. Furthermore, many of the practices had become ingrained as custom among those who were Jews. Moreover, since the Law was not merely religious but was also the law of the land, some things, such as the restrictions on work on the Sabbaths, had to be followed by all those living in the land.

The ultimate reason for Paul's observance of the Law was so as to gain those Jewish believers that were now Christians. Remember that the Mosaic Law had been in effect for over 15 centuries at this time. This was part of the Jewish way of life and asking them to change was tantamount to heresy. For this reason, Paul tried to appeal to all who would listen to the message:

I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others. (1 Corinthians 9:22, 23)

So Paul did not live according to Jewish Law but he did what was needed in order to deliver the message to all willing to listen.

[All scripture quotations from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition)]

Answer 4

The introductory quotation in the question contains and added "[Jewish]" before the word "law". That in itself indicates a misunderstanding of what Paul means by "law".

• God's Law is defined in the Torah.
• Jewish law is defined by the Pharisees.

Jewish law encompasses God's Law, but also adds many additional requirements to ensure that there isn't any doubt that God's Law is being obeyed.

A modern example of a "rabbinical fence" law is the ubiquitous "Stop" sign at intersections. In order to avoid collisions at an intersection, it must be made obvious which traffic has the right of way. A "Yield" sign serves this purpose ("God's Law"). But just to be sure, many intersections are marked with "Stop" signs, requiring that vehicles must come to a complete stop before continuing, even if there is obviously no other traffic anywhere nearby ("Jewish law"). There is no logical need for such a law, but it helps to ensure that people are obeying, without any doubt.

• Yielding to the traffic with right of way is the spirit of the law ("God's Law").
• Stopping for the traffic with right of way, even when there is no other traffic, is the letter of the law ("Jewish law").

These enhanced laws were the laws that Jesus often criticized, not God's Law.

When Paul speaks of "obedience to the law" he is referring to God's law, as defined in the Torah, not to the Pharisees' "[Jewish] law".

---

There is also confusion about what "circumcision" means.

God made two major covenants, promising blessings for those that follow the Law:

• the "old" covenant was an agreement with the physical nation of Israel, promising physical blessings for those that obey.
• the "new" covenant was an agreement with the spiritual nation of Israel, offering spiritual blessings for those that accept the spirit of God's Law.

Both covenants require that the people follow God's Law:

• the physical covenant required literal obedience to the law in one's actions, so long as one never acted wrong one's thoughts didn't matter.
• the spiritual covenant required obedience to the spirit of the law in one's actions and thoughts.

Each covenant has a sign:

• the physical covenant requires physical circumcision, symbolically dedicating each new son to be part of the covenant.
• the spiritual covenant requires baptism and a spiritual circumcision ("of the heart"), indicating that one's thoughts will be God's.

Paul and the other elders eventually realized that while Jews should still be physically circumcised (since they are still part of the physical nation of Israel), non-Jewish Christians did not need to be (since they are not part of the physical covenant). But they would certainly not tell Jews that they must not circumcise their sons.

The specific Levitical and Civil laws defined in the Torah as part of the physical covenant with physical Israel are not part of the spiritual covenant. But God's Laws regarding personal behaviour (e.g. any law based on the Ten Commandments) applies to both physical (Jews) and spiritual (Christians) Israel.

Note that "circumcision of the heart" was not introduced by Christianity; 1500 years before Jesus, God had predicted that he would make it happen:

And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. … And you will again obey the voice of the LORD and do all His commandments which I command you today.
— Deuteronomy 30:6,8

And notice that those people will not simply follow the literal physical law, but will spiritually love God, and will show it by obeying his commandments, the very commandments given through Moses.

---

Paul summarized all of the above by saying:

In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

For Christians (in the new covenant), it makes no difference whether one is circumcised (in the old covenant). God will treat all Christians the same, whether Jewish or Gentile.

What is essential for Christians though, is that they love God, that they obey him in spirit, and that their spiritual faith bear fruit.

Answer 5

I received a note asking if this post [linked below] answered my question. I answered yes. It takes the position that Acts simply represents a different point of view than Paul's letters. Paul's actions in Acts are inconsistent with his teachings about the Law in his letters, and especially with his supposed circumcision of Timothy. "When in Jerusalem, do as the Jews do," doesn't suffice unless Paul was a hypocrite. Did James & the elders in Jerusalem advise Paul to compromise in Acts 21:21-24?