What is Paul saying about circumcision in Galatians?

As I was reading through the epistles assigned to my group, I found it extremely difficult to come up with a good question for this blog. Reading through Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians was not a difficult task, but it was very hard to come up with a question. So, after reading and reading and reading again (which wasn't too daunting, considering how short these epistles are), I finally came up with a question! Therefore, my question is: What is Paul saying about circumcision in Galatians? 

Now, I am no expert on circumcision. I'm clearly not a man and I have no kids, so I have not had to make that kind of medical decision for someone yet, but that's besides the fact. What I do know, is that it is clearly stated in the Gospel of Luke that Jesus was circumcised after 8 days (Luke 2:21). According to this fact, the reader can only assume that other male followers of Christ should also be circumcised, like Jesus. But, wait, suddenly, I get to Galatians 5:2-3 and I see something different. It states, "Look: I, Paul say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law." What exactly does this mean? Does this mean that if a man is circumcised that he must live by the Old (Testament) Law? Does this mean that a man who is not circumcised has essentially no laws to live by? What does Paul mean when he says that "if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you."? Well,that is what I am going to attempt to find out throughout this blog. 



In order to understand why this statement by Paul in Galatians 5:2-3 sounds a little contradictory/confusing to me, I'm going to first look at the broader question of, "What does the Bible say about circumcision?" According to Compelling Truth, it appears that the practice of circumcision was instituted in the Old Testament, as a covenant between God and Abraham. God said in Genesis 17:9-10; "And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised." So, based on this information, we can deduce that in all generations of males should be circumcised(based on OT law). Now, we all know that with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, this OT law was no longer valid. 

According to Bible.Org, in this verse speaking about circumcision(Galatians 5:2-6), Paul is essentially saying that those people who get circumcised because of obligation are then in turn obligated to keep in God's good graces by "law-keeping and not by faith". This basically means, that Paul is saying, as noted at Sentex, that "Paul emphasizes the superiority of faith, love, and the new creation. By comparison, neither the rite of circumcision nor uncircumcision holds any benefit for the believer." 

What I have gathered from all of the research and just the text is that Paul was saying that, in order to be in God's good graces, you do not have to be circumcised and those who chose to be circumcised must continue to follow the OT law because they chose to try and get into heaven by actions instead of having faith in the Lord. Paul's comment "if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.", really means, in my opinion, that if you take actions(probably any actions) for the wrong reasons, the fact that Jesus was crucified will be of no advantage to you, because now you must follow all the OT laws.

What did it mean to speak in tongues?

While reading Acts, I had a lot of questions, but the thing that stood out the most to me was in Acts 2. Now, don't get me wrong, I have heard of speaking in tongues, mainly because my brother & sister-in-law attend a Church of God and my brother has told me some stories about people speaking in tongues. As I had not looked any further into the whole speaking in tongues thing, mainly because growing up, we attended a non-denominational church sometimes and the whole speaking in tongues thing wasn't happening. So, coming across this reference to speaking in tongues in Acts 2 had me interested.It made me curious, therefore, my question is, what did it really mean to speak in tongues?


During my research, I found a lot of information from Corinthians, but alas, that is not the book I am writing about this week, so I am focusing solely on what it meant to speak in tongues based on the information given to us in the Book of Acts. Acts 2:4 states, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." So, without reading any further, what does this mean? Before reading this and researching it, (side note-I am certainly not judging or being crass when I say this), I thought (and again, this was before reading and researching), that speaking in tongues was literally the Holy Ghost got in someone and that they started babbling unintelligibly. I know, that is probably horrible of me to think, but honestly, what else was I supposed to think? I hear, "speaking in tongues" and I think someone basically babbling. (another side-note-If I offended anyone, I deeply apologize). Therefore, the reference to speaking in tongues in Acts had me enamored. I, like I said above, never thought of it as something that others could interpret(besides one or two in the congregation), and I never thought of it as something that was helpful to others. In researching, I of course, was proven wrong, at least that's what I now believe. 

Acts 2:5-8 describes the speaking of tongues in a way I never even imagined; "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?" I never looked at it this way, I never had to read the whole New Testament either though. If we read these verses and take them for exactly what they say, it says that speaking in tongues is not in fact the "babble" I thought it was, it is speaking in other languages that one did not know that they could speak. According to House to House, my thoughts are confirmed. This website states that speaking in tongues essentially means for someone to speak in an understandable and established language. This source goes on to say that speaking in tongues, in our modern days, is generally a misused and misunderstood statement, because what is in fact happening when people "speak in tongues" today, they are really referring to "ecstatic utterances made after" contact with the Holy Spirit. Also according to this website, speaking in tongues is generally stating that the apostles could speak in more than one foreign language. Another website, Got Questions, also confirms that "the gift of tongues is speaking in a language a person does not know in order to minister to someone who does speak that language."

Therefore, according to most websites, articles, etc., the speaking of tongues as described in the Book of Acts is a spontaneous speaking of another language. In an academic article that I found, The Philosophy of Speaking in Tongues, I found that the speaking of tongues in Acts, is called Glossolalia, which literally means the act of speaking in a language other than the one that the person is aware that they can speak. It seems that most people come to agreement that speaking in tongues, according to Acts, was speaking in understandable languages to people who needed to hear the word. 

Who was Lazarus and why did Jesus raise him from the dead?

This week's blog was a little easier on me, because (in my mind), John is so different from the other three Gospel's. John's book was certainly a page turner and while it was a little hard for me to get through and understand Matthew, Mark, & Luke sometimes, I just could not stop reading John. I know, it sounds crazy, but it's true, I enjoyed it. The only problem was, I had 100 questions that I feel like I could have asked, but I decided on one, finally. That being said, my question is: Who was Lazarus and why did Jesus raise him from the dead? As I was reading, I ran across this man, Lazarus, who I had heard of before, but not read anything about, and here it is in John, all about his death and Jesus raising him. 



Lazarus of Bethany is not mentioned in the other gospel's and that is why the story about him interested me so much. If this was such a miracle and a sign, why was it not mentioned in the other gospel's?(That is besides the point though and if I ramble off in that direction, we might be here all day). John 11 is the first the reader here's about Lazarus. So, who was he? According to Infoplease, Lazarus of Bethany was a friend and follower of Jesus. Also, according to another website, American Catholic, Lazarus was also the brother of Mary and Martha. In John 11:1-4, we learn that Lazarus was clearly someone Jesus loved and cared about very much. The sisters even said to Jesus, "Lord the one who you love is ill." John 11:3. So, as we can see, Lazarus of Bethany was someone very close to Jesus and the brother of Mary and Martha. Although this is good information, and tells us the basics of who Lazarus was I wanted to dig a little bit deeper into who exactly Lazarus of Bethany was, obviously he had to be someone besides just a friend/follower of Jesus and someone's brother. So, according to Nostos, Lazarus was a saint of the Greek Orthodox Church and he was born in Bethany. Jesus actually knew Lazarus' father Simon and would often times visit their home when he was near by, this is how Lazarus formed a close bond with Jesus. Also, Lazarus was around 30 years old when he became ill.

Now, why did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, especially after 4 days? Why didn't Jesus just get to town and heal him before he died? This was the part of the story that I didn't really get. Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead because he loved him that much? Did he do it to prove he was the Son of Man? Or, was it because of something else? According to John 11:17, by the time Jesus got to Bethany, Lazarus had been in the tomb for four days, and was probably with God in Heaven at this point(just my personal opinion, I don't honestly know). According to most websites, and essentially according to the bible, the reason Jesus raised Lazarus was because it was a miracle. According to our text, "The raising of Lazarus is one of the last of the seven great signs that punctuate John's Gospel." I believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, not only because it was a sign and a miracle, but also because he loved him and cared for him and wishes he would have been there to heal him when he was extremely ill. Jesus was performing signs and miracles to prove to people that he was the Son of Man and that it was nearing time for his crucifixion and resurrection. 

Why did Luke include the childhood of Jesus in his gospel?

Once again, it was very hard to come up with a question this week. Luke mashed up with Matthew and Mark and it felt like I was reading the same story(which, duh, I am), over and over again, so everything is kind of getting mashed up into one confused blob in my head. So, again, after re-reading, and doing a little research about the Gospel of Luke, I decided on my question. So, my question is, as my blog title suggests; Why did Luke include the childhood of Jesus in his gospel? Although this was a really hard question to research, I really wanted to know the answer. As it turns out, there isn't really a definitive answer to this question, which, in my mind, makes it all the more interesting. I wish this blog post was more informative and entertaining, but alas, it is not, because there is not much information on the subject of Jesus and his childhood and there is certainly almost no information on why only Luke included a short little story about Jesus as a boy.



Now, we have all heard the story of Mary, the Virgin, giving birth to Jesus and laying him in a manger because there was no room in the inn, but I, personally, had never heard any stories of Jesus as a child. I kind of wonder why this is. Are the parts in between the birth and Jesus' ministry unimportant? I don't think so. I think that the "in between" parts aren't included in all the Gospels because it is almost unnecessary in getting the point and stories of Jesus across, but I find it interesting. Therefore, why does Luke add some things in his Gospel that I have not read in Matthew or Mark? It appears that there isn't much known about Jesus' actual childhood, but for some reason, Luke adds a little tid bit for all the readers. In my opinion, by adding a little extra information, it helps readers understand more about Jesus' faith and life. It was very hard for me to find any sources with any answers to my question, but I will do my best with what I have been given. According to one source, (which is a Church, but it's the best I could find), Gospel Accounts, Luke was writing to a Greek audience and possibly wanted them to understand the early signs of Jesus' wisdom and teachings. In Luke 3:41-52, the author tells the only story we truly know of Jesus' childhood, "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers." Luke 3:41-47. 



According to Religion Facts, the Gospels are mostly silent when it comes to mentioning anything about Jesus as a boy. We just get the facts, Mary, The Virgin, gave birth to him, wise men came and visited, Herod wanted him killed, then the next thing we know, Jesus, when he was around 30 (Luke 4:23), began his ministry. I suppose most of the in between would be frivolous and unimportant considering all that the gospels are really trying to tell us is that Jesus is the Son of Man, and the Messiah. The point of the gospels really isn't to tell Jesus' complete story from birth to death to resurrection.  The most important parts of those from the beginning of his ministry to his death and resurrection. In my mind though, I feel like I am missing a chunk of information (almost like watching The Harry Potter Series/Hunger Games/Almost any book to movie translation without having read the books-weird comparison, I know). I wish I could find more information about the "in between", but I can't. That being said, I am glad that Luke, being the "investigative reporter" he is decided to add a few extra things about Jesus' boyhood. Certainly Luke 3:41-52 truly shows the reader how important and wise Jesus was. 



In closing, I believe that Luke included the story about Mary and Joseph going to Jerusalem for every Passover and then Jesus in turn staying behind to teach as a further indicator of Jesus' great wisdom. 

Why was Mary Magdalene the first person Jesus appeared to after the resurrection?

While reading through the Gospel of Mark, I had a hard time coming up with a question. I am guessing this is because it is telling the same story that Matthew told, essentially. While there are some notable differences in the two, it was hard for me to separate one from the other, so I had to re-read a few times and then form a question. At the end (literally) of reading and re-reading, I finally found it, my question. So, here is the question I ask: Why was Mary Magdalene the first person Jesus appeared to after the resurrection? 



At the end of Matthew, the author makes note that Mary and Mary Magdalene went down to see the tomb and were informed that Jesus was no longer there, for he had risen. In Matthew 28:9-10, it states that Jesus greeted BOTH Mary and Mary Magdalene, so why then, in the Gospel of Mark, does it state that: "Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons." (Mark 16:9). Why in Mark's story is it just Mary Magdalene and why is she the first person he appears to? Did Mark just CHOOSE to omit Mary or did Matthew get it wrong? 

In researching this question, I found a few differing opinions. It seems that in the books of Mark and John, Jesus appears only to Mary Magdalene (or, as in John, it is not explicitly stated that Jesus only appears to Mary Magdalene, it states, "Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"---and that he had said these things to her" John 20:18.) Therefore, it seems that only the Gospel of Mark states that "Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene".

According to TaborBlog , the Gospel of Mark mentions Mary Magdalene only 3 times, at the crucifixion, the burial, and after the resurrection. Why in Mark's gospel did Mary Magdalene see Jesus FIRST? Why would Jesus appear before her first, when according to some, she was an extreme sinner and a "harlot"? (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/206.html)

 While googling and looking and trying to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING to answer this question, all I can find is that the gospel of Mark, "got it right", Mary Magdalene was the first person that Jesus appeared to, and that there is no contradiction in the other books regarding the resurrection, because the others(Mary, the disciples, Cephas and the twelve, etc), saw Jesus AFTER Mary Magdalene did. (http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/who-saw-jesus-first). It seems that some believe that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first and that she was the first person to deliver the good news of Jesus' resurrection because she was his most loyal servant. According to many sources, Mary Magdalene stayed there with Jesus until the end, witnessing the crucifixion, seeing where his body was laid, and helped prepare for the embalming. Therefore, one can make the assumption that Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus after the resurrection, and the person to deliver the good news of Easter, because she never left his side. (The Expository Files).

In closing, I feel fairly certain that after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene first, because she was extremely loyal and she was the only one still hanging around mourning him and waiting. Most research points to this same answer, although with enough digging you can find the random conspiracy theory, or critic/blogger saying that Mark just omitted some things. I will add that, while talking to my husband about my blog question, he said that he believes that Jesus appeared to her first because they were in fact married, but he's a conspiracy theorist(he even thinks Tupac is alive for goodness sakes), so, we will just go ahead and ignore what he thinks, since that would be another blog for another day:)

Matthew 27: 51-53, why is this passage included?

While reading through Matthew, I actually had many questions that I thought would be good for this blog, but, seeing as how I wanted to do something a little outside the box, AND, The Walking Dead premiere is quickly approaching us, I thought I would ask a question about something that I found pretty strange. Are there zombies in the Book of Matthew? Specifically, what does the passage in Matthew 27:51-53 really mean and why is it included?  It seems obvious that the answer to this question is yes, yes there are in fact people that start rising from the dead, therefore, there are zombies. Ok, maybe there aren't zombies in "The Walking Dead" sense(maybe not?), but, there are definitely some folks rising that should probably keep on being dead, as opposed to getting up and walking around. Personally, I wouldn't take kindly to people rising from the dead and walking around, I've watched too much Walking Dead, so I'd probably pull a Daryl Dixon and start popping those suckers off with a cross bow, but I digress. The real question here is, "Does Matthew mention zombies in his book, what is the point of the "zombies" in Matthew, and why is this passage even included?"

 

As we can all assume, these "bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep and were raised, and coming out of the tombs" were not reanimated, flesh eating zombies,(I personally imagine them to be slightly shimmery and floating beings), but still, what is the point of these saints rising from their tombs to walk into the holy city? As I've done some research, I've read many other blogs and many other websites that also specifically question this passage. From my research, it seems that Matthew is the only one out of the four gospels who mentions the "saints rising from the dead' in the New Testament. According to a specific blog (500 questions blog) ,I found when trying to find an answer to the question I have posed, none of the other gospels mention this rising from the dead, Why is this? Is it because it isn't true or because maybe Matthew was trying to make his gospel more convincing to readers and/or non believers? These are answers we may never know, or we just have to decide for ourselves. 

I can say with a great deal of certainty that Matthew does mention "zombies" in his gospel, but, he is the only one who mentions this, and I say, if this really happened, isn't it a fairly big incident that all 4 gospels should mention? The question as to the reason that the other gospels don't mention the saints coming out of their tombs and walking into the holy city is one to be asked at another time, in another blog though.

According to an article in Christianity Today, a man named Michael Licona wrote a 700 page book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, in 2010 and one of the many passages written in this book claimed that Matthew's use of the raised saints was just a symbol that the Son of Man had just died, not something that legitimately happened. Licona came under a lot of scrutiny for this, even though, it does certainly make sense that Matthew possibly added the raising of saints as a strictly literary element in order to drive home the point that Jesus was dead and that he would soon be risen. In my mind, the fact that Matthew is the only gospel that even mentions this makes clear the point that the rising of theses saints is not to be taken literally, but used only as a literary device. Think about it, if this whole passage was omitted, sure the death and the coming resurrection of Jesus Christ would still be understood, but when Jesus dies and there is a passage, such as Matthew 27: 51-53 that uses such strong language (i.e.-"The curtain of the temple was torn in two...." "Many of the bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised..."), would the fact that Jesus is indeed the Son of God be fully understood? 

While googling for hours trying to find some sort of differing opinion on this, I essentially came up empty handed. It seems that most bloggers/journalists/other people believe this passage is one of two things; #1- A non-historical passage that was not intended to be taken literally, but a passage to be taken as a sign of things to come(i.e-the rising of Jesus Christ). #2-It seems that a lot of people just kind of ignore and do not question this passage and pass it off as either a "weird historically accurate truth" or, they just ignore it completely like it was never mentioned. Zombies in Matthew

In conclusion, in my opinion, I feel as though Matthew 27: 51-53 has been put there for symbolic and foreshadowing reasons. It is a strange passage and I think the element of the "temple being torn in two", the earthquake-like event, and the saints rising from their tombs was put in Matthew, not to be taken at face value, but for Matthew to bring across the point that Jesus "Truly this was the Son of God!" Or, perhaps, Matthew just liked to embellish a little.