Thanks so much for posting this.

The final two sentences of the essay should read: “Polemical situations rarely provide a seed-bed for careful theology. And that, it seems to me, is worth thinking about.”

But one could argue that given the Context the Steven might even be saying look here is Moses, acceptable to God and he is not even circumcised yet. Considering that he will go on to say that the Temple was not God’s dwelling and was misguided…and then to tell them that they were Moses rejectors…it would not be outside of the realm of possibility for him to be saying: Look in this Kingdom things are different than you have been seeing them, consider Moses, acceptable to God even before he was circumcised…that would fit right within the context of the point he is making.

It’s also nice to see Keller putting more out now.

Peace

Circumcision is no longer required for Christians, nor is it still a sign of the covenant. That was settled in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council and discussed at length by Paul in Galatians. In other words, there is not going to be a pile of foreskins outside of the pearly gates.

I can’t wait to read Tim’s new book either. I’ve heard the sermon on the prodigal son and it’s fantastic. This book will hopefully bring revival o many believers’ hearts (as I hope the last one removed many barriers in seekers’ hearts).

And the Frame book looks great, too. What a kind man. I emailed him out of the blue for help on a presentation I was giving at my last church (me representing the reformed position on the attributes of God vs. Arminian and Open) and he gave me some great input, though he knew me not.

Canonically/theologically, no, someone does not have to be circumcised in order to be acceptable to God.

Historically, from Genesis 17 until Christ (although probably around the time of Christ since we read of “God-fearing” Gentiles, i.e., Gentiles who weren’t down with the required chop) circumcision was necessary to be within the covenant.

It’s hard to come to the conclusion that a person could not only be within the covenant, but lead the covenant community, talk to God, and also be the one to whom God gives Torah, all while continually violating the covenant.

1) the use of tw thew is based on a Hebraism used to express the superlative, as in Jonah 3.3. So the translation would be “and he was an exceedingly beautiful boy.”

2) the phrase simply means “fair in the sight of God” as translated by the TNIV.

His first explanation flies in the face of the fact that Luke-Acts is the finest Greek found in the New Testament. Why would a Hebraism, and a Hebraism that is not even found in the Exodus birth narrative nor in the Torah, be used in this instance? This choice seems like a stretch based on what we know about the high level of Greek grammar found in Luke-Acts and based on the text of Exodus 2.1-10.

His second explanation does not due justice to the semantic range of asteios. The only time asteios is used in the NT it is referring to the birth of Moses (Acts 7.20; Hebrews 11.23). Both times in the NRSV and ESV it is translated as “beautiful,” not “fair.” The term kalous is the only term translated as “fair” in the NT besides eudia, which means “fair weather.” Furthermore, “fair” is not one of the translation choices in BAGD, which uses both the NT and other early Christian literature. To choose to translate asteios as “fair” seems, at least to me, to be guided by something other than lexicography.

I’m not familiar enough with the post- Nicea camp to comment.

Even if it seems “wacky,” you still have to explain what Stephen means and why that comment makes sense in the context. Thus far, I have not heard a satisfactory interpretation besides the one that is offered (i.e., that Stephen is picking up on second Temple exegetical traditions). I’m willing to listen to you if you can offer one.

Just a question: anyone in the Orthodox/Catholic-post-nicea camp suggest this idea? It sounds a bit wacky.

So if that is what Stephen is implying I am not sure that it has to be historical…

That said I think that what is implied is not circumcision but rather the Moses found favor. Stephen is working up this speech in a very deliberate way: He will say things that the Sanhedrin agrees with and then throw in Jabs…So he gives the History of Moses only to say that they rejected him…then he gives the history of the Temple only to say that it has no place. NT Wright says he does this as a “run up” to his main point in other words he has to recast their history in order to say to them if you knew your history and saw it as I do you would know I was right.

But even if circumcision is not implied your point stands from the rest of the passage of the grounds of Hebraic vs. Hellenistic scriptures.

Here is the Irony…yesterday when I referenced you in my message the message was on this passage….