CONCLUSION (2)
THE ABOLITION OF ORDINANCES
In Ephesians 2:14 and 15, Paul says: “For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.” I believe that what he saw and experienced in Acts 15-28 led him to write such categorical words. As he was writing this, he may have thought: “All the ordinances of the law have been abolished. Circumcision, the Nazirite vow, and even the vow I took have been abolished.”
Paul may have regretted the vow he made in Acts 18 as well as circumcising Timothy in Acts 16. If I had been with him while he was writing Ephesians, I might have asked him: “Brother Paul, I would like to learn from you. Since Christ has abolished all ordinances, why did you still circumcise Timothy in Lystra?” If someone had asked Paul this question, he might have answered: “I did that a long time ago, and I regret it. I will never circumcise anyone again.”
When Paul wrote Ephesians 2, he was far more perfected than when he circumcised Timothy in Acts 16. His experiences in Acts 15-28 led him to be more categorical about circumcision. I do not believe that, without the experiences recorded in these chapters, Paul could have written a chapter like Ephesians 2.
It is useful to compare Paul’s words about circumcision in Galatians with what he says regarding the abolition of ordinances in Ephesians 2. Probably, the Epistle to the Galatians was written before Acts 16. In Galatians 6:15, he says: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.” In reality, these words still leave some room for the practice of circumcision. But in Ephesians 2, his words are absolute, and there is no basis for the practice of circumcision.
Paul learned from everything that happened in Acts 15-28. I believe that during the two years he was detained in Caesarea, he reviewed everything that had taken place. In doing so, he may have thought: “If I have the chance, I would like to write another letter and say something more complete about circumcision than in Galatians. I will not only say that circumcision is nothing nor uncircumcision, but I will say that all ordinances, especially those regarding circumcision, have been abolished. If I could rewrite the Epistle to the Galatians, I would tell the believers that circumcision was abolished at the cross. I would tell them not to practice circumcision because it offends and insults the Lord. We should no longer practice anything that the Lord abolished at the cross.”
By studying the Bible, we can compare Ephesians and Galatians regarding the ordinances on circumcision. If we do so, we will see that what Paul says in Galatians is neither as categorical nor as complete as what he says in Ephesians. In Ephesians 2, he leaves no room for circumcision.
A WARNING ABOUT MUTILATION
In Philippians 3, Paul uses a very strong negative term to refer to circumcision: mutilation. In Philippians 3:2, he says: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!” The expression “the mutilation” here can also be translated as “false circumcision,” and it is a term of contempt. Since there is no conjunction between the three clauses, they must refer to the same type of people.
Dogs are unclean (Lv 11:4-8), the workers are evil, and the mutilation refers to those who deserve contempt. “Dogs” refers to the Judaizers. By nature, they are unclean dogs; by their behavior, they are evil workers; and in their religion, they are the mutilation, shameful people. Paul is certainly very categorical in exhorting the Philippians to beware of dogs, evil workers, and the mutilation. Here, he affirms that the Judaizers, those who promote circumcision, are dogs.
What do you think Paul would have said if, in light of his words in Philippians 3:2, he had been asked about James? He might have said: “James is certainly not a dog, but in a certain way, he acted like one. He is my dear brother. Since I respected him, I went to see him. But when he spoke to me, I heard something that sounded like a dog’s barking.”
By reading Philippians 3, we see that Paul was strengthened by his experiences in Acts 15-28, and especially by the time he spent in Caesarea. Through this strengthening, he told the believers to beware of dogs and mutilation. In Philippians, he no longer even speaks of circumcision but instead uses a term of contempt—mutilation. How categorical he was in writing this epistle!
When writing Philippians 3, Paul was more categorical than when he wrote Galatians and Romans. In Romans 2:28-29, he says: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” In reality, what he says here about circumcision is not very categorical. Some basis for the practice of circumcision still remains. But in Philippians 3:2, there is no room for circumcision, which is now called false circumcision, or mutilation—a practice promoted by dogs.
In Philippians 3:8, Paul says: “Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ.” The word “rubbish” refers to “garbage, waste, refuse, that which is thrown to the dogs, dog food, excrement.”
First, Paul exhorts the believers to beware of dogs, then he indicates that what these dogs, the Judaizers, teach is dog food. Once again, we see Paul’s progression in his writings.
Enjoy more: Hymn 339
No comments:
Post a Comment