Why is the importance of circumcision stressed in Acts 15?

Why is circumcision the major topic of discussion in Acts 15? Why is there such a big debate over who is circumcised and who is not? This was the source of much dispute in the book of Acts. There are numerous places where the discussion of circumcision divides people, but the importance of this action is not completely explained in all of its entirety. The positive or negative opinion of circumcision will vary depending on which group of people are probed about the act. The act of circumcision is important to some, and this act is frowned upon by others. Circumcision was seen as an important requirement of men under the Jewish law. I chose this question for my Acts blog because the Old Testament stresses the importance of circumcision, but I found it interesting that in Acts of the New Testament, circumcision is not required of the Gentiles. The protesters in Acts 15 allowed their beliefs on actions that are not required for salvation to dictate who they thought were worthy of receiving the Holy Spirit.

The act of being circumcised is very integral to certain religious groups as a sign of commitment and dedication to their doctrine of choice. The Jewish use circumcision as a tool that extracts them from the world and makes them unique. Circumcision is seen as a good act as well as a bad act: “For the Jew, circumcision was one of a handful of important boundary markers which set them apart from the rest of the world.  For the Gentile, circumcision was a strange mutilation of the flesh”. I can understand why the Gentiles viewed circumcision as a peculiar action, because it is literally changing one’s physical appearance for a spiritual purpose. Peter defended the Gentiles against circumcision in Acts 15. He informed the crowd that even though they were not circumcised that the Lord had filled them with the Holy Spirit as well. Although circumcision was very vital to the Jewish peoples’ ideas of upholding their law, clearly one can still receive the Holy Spirit without being circumcised.

The symbolism of circumcision is the key component that is so dynamic to the principles of the standard that the Jewish try to uphold. Circumcision, among other tasks, were expected from those who proclaimed to maintain the Jewish laws. A lot of these Jewish standards did not have an effect on one’s religious status: “Circumcision has absolutely nothing to do with your salvation”. This act has no major impact or anything to do with salvation, and yet it is the topic of discussion and disagreement in Acts 15. The meaning of circumcision goes beyond tradition: “Circumcision is given as a sign of the Covenant of Abraham in Genesis 17, yet the ritual itself did not confer “spiritual blessing” as a sign of the covenant”. A covenant is a promise or oath between two or more beings, and this oath originated from prior generations. If getting circumcised does not get one into heaven, then why go through the pain of enduring it? The meaning of circumcision seems to only be elevated as a Holy practice because of the traditions that the Jewish ancestors set forth.

After I did a little research on circumcision and what it stands for, I deduced that the protesters against the Gentiles in Acts 15 were completely at fault. The absence of circumcision did not stop the Gentiles from being filled with the Holy Spirit, and the things that are insignificant when it comes to having salvation should not be present. Jesus taught a message contrary to the Jewish law for circumcision: “Jesus' teaching on circumcision was also consistent with the Acts of the Apostles, where the ancient food laws and the restrictions on mixing with Gentiles were overthrown”. Jesus’ teachings overthrew many customs that the Jewish people held near and dear, and it proved to be difficult for them to accept a transformation of what they had been taught. In general, it takes the human race awhile to adjust to change, and the Jewish people were not exempt from this character flaw.

In conclusion, I have come to the conclusion that the traditional aspect of circumcision is the major reason that it is so widely accepted in the Jewish religion. Circumcision has absolutely no influence on one’s standpoint with salvation. Sometimes, our ancestors made the mistake of allowing non-essential things deter people’s acceptance of Jesus as the Savior. That same mistake is being made today, when Christians banish people who do not necessarily fit the “perfect Christian” mold. The amount of encumbrance that is placed on the act of circumcision is quite frankly pointless, because both the circumcised and uncircumcised were able to receive the Holy Spirit.

Matthew Blog Revised

Ok. I have a major question that I have a few theories about. Why was Barabbas allowed to go free instead of Jesus? It was recorded that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate started to release Jesus, but at the urging of a crowd full of the Jewish constituency released Barabbas. The chief priests, Jewish constituency, and possibly other rebels played an active role in the decision to destroy Jesus. They all had their reasons for wanting Jesus out of the picture, but Barabbas still should not have been allowed to go free.

It is known that Pilate attempted to adhere to his custom: “The custom of releasing prisoners in Jerusalem at Passover is known as the Paschal Pardon,^[10] but this custom (whether at Passover or any other time) is not recorded in any historical document other than the gospels”. I thought it odd that this custom was not recorded anywhere else other than the gospels. That day’s events did not go off without a hitch: “The Roman governor Pontius Pilate tried to use this custom as an excuse to release Jesus. But a crowd in the courtyard demanded that a prisoner named Barabbas be freed instead, and Pilate eventually gave in to the pressure.” This theory of Jesus Christ being crucified because of one man’s weakness to the influence of the Jewish constituency is definitely a valid reason. The magnitude of pressure from this group that Pilate was subject to was significant enough to change his choice for who would be executed by crucifixion. Obviously, there were other rebels, the Jewish constituency, and chief priests or the Jewish elite present in the crowd who wanted to witness what Jesus’ fate would be, and their presence definitely made an impact on the crowd’s choice: “Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus” (Matthew 27:20). The chief priests and elders convinced everyone to vote to release Barabbas because Jesus’ following had gotten too large. The chief priests had a monumental fear of what Jesus was doing: “Their fear was that, if Jesus acquired a large following and became a political ruler or king, (which was against the Roman Law), that Rome would come down and squash the rebellion, and remove the authority of the council”.

~Pilate, more than likely did not prefer to release Barabbas because of the things he had done: “Barabbas, was a criminal, responsible for insurgence, murder and robbery”. Barabbas was a criminal and a murderer, but his most prominent crime was his involvement with the insurgent rebels who were against the Roman government. It is also worth mentioning that there was another significant reason why Pilate would have preferred to crucify Barabbas instead: “Barabbas lived during a time when the independent Jewish state established by the Hasmonean dynasty had been brought to an end by the unrivaled power of the Roman Empire”. Barabbas was a part of the independent Jewish state that had been brought down by the Romans. Pilate knew Barabbas to be a resistance force against the Roman empire, and if the decision was left up to him, then Barabbas would have been crucified. I believe if Pilate knew that if he had not released Barabbas that there would have been a guaranteed uprising, so he chose to crucify Jesus Christ because it would not cause as many waves, and it would also please the Jewish constituency.

In conclusion, I will wrap up this question by inviting all theories of why this happened. The Jewish constituency, chief priests, and rebels who were present during the crowd’s vote between the prisoners definitely made a significant impact on the course of events on that day. The influence of these individuals single-handedly decided Jesus’ fate.

Why was Barabbas freed instead of Jesus?

                 Ok. I have a major question that I have a few theories about. Why was Barabbas allowed to go free instead of Jesus? I have found many answers to this question, but I narrowed it down to a few I wanted to highlight. First, it was recorded that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate started to release Jesus, but at the urging of the crowd released Barabbas a.k.a. he fell to peer pressure. Second, of course I don’t feel that there ever was a chance for Jesus to escape the crucifixion because of His purpose set forth by God. Last, as humorous as it may seem, maybe the crowd was confused about which of the men to release because Jesus and Barabbas actually had the same first name.

                 First, it is known that Pilate attempted to follow his custom to release one of the prisoners: “The Roman governor Pontius Pilate tried to use this custom as an excuse to release Jesus. But a crowd in the courtyard demanded that a prisoner named Barabbas be freed instead, and Pilate eventually gave in to the pressure.” This theory of Jesus Christ being crucified because of one man’s weakness to peer pressure, though it seems silly, is actually a pretty valid reason. The magnitude of peer pressure that Pilate was subject to was very significant. Barabbas was known as a murderer, but the crowd voted to release him because he was a rebel against the Romans. Obviously, there were other rebels present in the crowd who wanted to witness what Barabbas’ fate would be. I believe if Pilate had not released him that there would have been a guaranteed uprising, and he chose to crucify Jesus Christ because it would not cause as many waves.

             Next, I feel like there was never even a glimmer of hope for Jesus not to be crucified because God needed Christ to be crucified to bring about his will. God is a very complex and intricate being who plans out every detail down to the last miniscule part. He has constructed every level of His perfect plan, and I do not believe that any factor involved with the question of whether Jesus Christ would be crucified or not could affect the outcome of what God had planned. I know this is not a faith-based class, but this is what I believe the reason to be.

            Lastly, I think the release of Barabbas could have been an honest mistake. Hilariously, this situation could have easily been a case of two men with the same name, and the crowd picked the wrong Jesus. Pilate asked the crowd the question of all questions, “So after they had gathered, Pilate said to them, Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”. I don’t know who would want to be in the middle of picking which man should be set free when both men are named Jesus, and Barabbas also means “son of the father”. This choice could get very confusing, and it could have very simply been a careless error on the people in the crowd.

In conclusion, I will wrap up this question by inviting all theories of why this happened. There are many possibilities of why like: Pontius may have succumbed to peer pressure like any normal respected official may, it could have only been up to God alone whether Jesus was crucified, and it definitely could have been attributed to an honest mistake made by the crowd. These theories all have my mind blown for the moment so feel free to shoot me some feedback.