Old Wine

Foreigners and Sabbath

We often tend to think that in the time before the life of Jesus, God was working exclusively with the nation of Israel, and in the time since he works mostly with Gentile believers. This may be generally true. Paul expresses in Ephesians 3 the mystery that was not made known in earlier times. “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” (3:6)

But this division is not nearly as clear cut as we tend to think. For one thing, the “church” has not replaced Israel in God’s working, as many like to think. This passage in Ephesians emphasizes that Gentiles who turn to God through Jesus are joined together with Israel. In Romans 11 Paul uses the metaphor of wild olive branches grafted into a cultivated olive tree to show how Gentiles become part of covenant Israel when they turn to God through Jesus.

But an interesting part of this issue is that God folding Gentiles in with Israel is not really anything new. We recall that when Israel left Egypt, they were joined by a “mixed multitude”. (Exodus 12:38) Throughout the Pentateuch instructions are given, mostly for the observance of holy days, and it is emphasized that “the same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you”. (Exodus 12:49 – cp. Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:15, 29)

We also have examples of Gentiles/foreigners who attached themselves to Israel, such as Ruth. Her passionate plea to Naomi that “your people will be my people and your God my God” ought to resonate with all Gentiles who believe in Jesus today.

Jesus also references the integration of Gentiles into Israel when he presents himself as the good shepherd in John 10. “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” (10:16)

There is a passage that’s less well-known but deals with this same theme in Isaiah 56. Here Isaiah addresses two groups of people who were considered to be somewhat out of God’s favor, foreigners and eunuchs. He gives the same message to each, a message of welcome and inclusion followed by an urging to righteous living and a sense of the reward to follow.

It’s worth noting what Isaiah records God as saying to these groups in his instruction for righteous living. We can get some sense of God’s priorities in passages like this. To the eunichs he says, “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant…” (56:4)

To the foreigners he says, “And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant…” (56:6) The list to foreigners is a little longer, but both include keeping the Sabbath and holding fast to his covenant.

It’s interesting that there are verses in the immediate vicinity, both preceding and following, that address the importance in God’s eyes of keeping the Sabbath. “This is what the LORD says: ‘Maintain justice and do what is right, for my salvation is close at hand and my righteousness will soon be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.'” (56:1-2) “If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the LORD’s holy day honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, then you will find your joy in the LORD, and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.” (58:13-14)

It is, in my view, a major tragedy that in the second century the bulk of “Christianity” turned against Israel (the Jews) and against God’s law. Admittedly it was mostly driven by the Fiscus Judaicus, an onerous tax on Jews and those who lived similarly. But in trying to distance themselves from the Jews by establishing different days of worship and festivals than the biblical ones, Gentile believers surrendered much of God’s approval and blessing.

God was fairly clear in the Hebrew scriptures which day he considered to be the Sabbath, and there is no hint of a change of day in the New Testament. “The Lord’s day” in Isaiah 58:13 is clearly the seventh-day Sabbath.

The issue among believers is not “worshiping on Sundays”. It’s a good thing to worship God on any day of the week. The problem is in not giving the regard to the seventh day that God commanded. I urge those Gentile believers in Jesus who really want to follow God’s priorities to set aside Saturday (Friday sunset until Saturday sunset) as a holy day and refrain from doing work and normal day-to-day activities. This should be done not to try to earn God’s favor, but out of love for him and obedience to his commands.

A Slave to What?

In the sixth and seventh chapters of Romans Paul discusses the issue of slavery. He suggests that we are all slaves to either sin or righteousness. “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey — whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness.” (6:16) “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” (6:18)

He puts it in a slightly different way later in the chapter. “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. (6:22)

In a previous passage Paul discussed the contrast between being under law and under grace. The law of God is a factor in both conditions, but the contrast is in two different relationships to the law, the obligation to obey it in your own strength, and the internalization of it, obeying through the power of the Spirit.

Basically the same contrast is in view in these chapters. The law has a role in being a slave to sin in that it defined what sin was. Without the law, there is no concept of sin, no standard of behavior. In discussing this side of the issue, Paul says some things that have been taken by some interpreters to imply that the law is no longer a standard to be aspired to. “So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.” (7:4) “But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.” (7:6)

With Paul saying that “you died to the law… (that) once bound us, we have been released from the law…”, it’s no wonder that in the second century Christianity was able to find supposed biblical support for its new anti-Torah theology. It seems that Paul is discussing the same dichotomy he was earlier when he was not “under law”, but also not free from God’s law. (cp. I Cor. 9:20-21)

In Romans chapter seven he goes on to emphatically state the positives of the law so that we don’t get the mistaken impression that we can ignore it. “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not!” (7:7) “So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” (7:12) “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.” (7:14) “I agree that the law is good.” (7:16)

This string of affirmations by Paul seems to be given as a caution so that his readers don’t get the wrong impression from what he said previously. The earlier mentions of the law seem to be in connection with the definition of sin and being a slave to sin. Paul elucidates this in 7:13. “Did that (the law) which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.”

So it was actually sin, as defined by the law, that brought death, not the law itself. And when Paul says, “you died to the law”, he’s talking about the relationship to the law of obligation to obey it in his own strength, as was the case under the “old covenant”.

Paul seems to give us his ultimate conclusion at the end of chapter seven. “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law.” (7:22) “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” (7:25)

Paul, and each one of us, can choose to be a slave to the “law” of sin, or to God’s law. Which one will you choose?

Under Law

In Romans 6:14 we find the statement that “You are not under law but under grace.” The phrase is not “under the law” but “under law”. What does it mean to be “under law”? Paul uses this term several times in Romans, I Corinthians, and Galatians. Let’s look at these passages to try to determine what Paul means by it.

In Galatians 4:4-5 we see that Jesus was “born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.” In this passage Paul identifies with those who are “under law”. In I Corinthians 9:20, however, he claims that he in not “under law”. “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. (He was a Jew.) To those under law I became like one under law (though I myself am not under law) so as to win those under law.”

It seems from these passages that “under law” refers to the relationship of the Jews to the law based on the Mosaic covenant, referred to by Paul sometimes as the “old covenant”, and by the writer of Hebrews as the “first covenant”. When God spoke the ten commandments from Sinai and gave additional laws, the people responded, “Everything the Lord has said we will do.” (Exodus 24:3) Moses then took the blood from burnt offerings and sprinkled half of it on the altar and the other half on the people (Exodus 24:6-8), obligating them to follow these laws in order to please God.

Jeremiah speaks of this when he announces the new covenant. “‘The time is coming’, declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them’, declares the Lord.” (Jer. 31:31-32) The people were not able to keep the covenant with God in their own strength. These people, the Jews to whom the law was given, were “under law”. Jesus was born under law, and Paul was under law before he found Jesus.

The blood of Jesus inaugurated the new covenant as pointed out by the author of Hebrews (7:22; 8:6, 13; 9:15-22). Under the first covenant, under law, people were responsible for their sins, and no one was able to keep the obligations. Paul’s message to those under law was that under the new covenant Christ took their past sins and they were no longer responsible for them.

What does that mean for life under the new covenant? Are people free to do whatever they want? Jeremiah described the new covenant (with Israel) as involving putting God’s law in their minds and writing it on their hearts, being their God and they his people. Even under the new covenant God identifies his law with his character.

Paul makes that clear in the passages that we mentioned earlier. In I Corinthians 9:21 he goes on to say, “To those not having the law (Gentiles) 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.” Whatever Paul meant by becoming like one not having the law, he wants to make clear to us that he is not free from God’s law, which Christ affirmed in Matthew 5:17-19 and elsewhere.

But Paul is even more emphatic on that point in the Romans passage. In Roman 6, after stating that “you are not under law, but under grace”, he goes on to say, “What then? Shall we sin (break the law) because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” (6:15) Here he uses the same extreme phrase that he uses in 3:31 to assure people that he is not abandoning the law as a guide to behavior — “Absolutely Not!”

He makes the same point just as emphatically in 6:1. “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” Just because we are no longer “under law” as the Jews were before the death of Christ doesn’t mean that we are free to ignore God’s instructions in his law about how to live.

Those of us who have trusted Jesus, been brought near to Israel, and been grafted into the olive tree, have God’s Holy Spirit to help us obey his instructions that we couldn’t do in our own strength. As the prophet Ezekiel said, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” (Ezekiel 36:26-27) No wonder that the day of God’s sending the Holy Spirit coincided with the festival that Jews use to remember the revelation at Mt. Sinai: Shavuot or Pentecost.

In conclusion, Paul contrasts these two different relationships with the law in Galatians 5:18 when he says, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.”

Ephesians 3 – Abolish?

In the second chapter of Ephesians there is a passage that trips up a lot of readers. It seems to say that the law was abolished. Let’s look at this passage and see what Paul was really talking about.

In the familiar verses 8-10 Paul points out that salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. Then in verse ten he clarifies that we are created to do good works, lest anyone think that works were not important.

In verses 11-13 he discusses the situation of Gentiles; they were once excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants. But those who believe in Christ and his work are no longer in that state. They are included in Israel and the covenants. (cp. v. 19)

But in verses 14 and 15 we get the passage that is so often misunderstood. “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one (Jew and Gentile) and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.” With a translation like this, it is natural to think that Paul is claiming that the law has been abolished.

There are a couple of problems with this understanding. Paul emphasized in Romans 3:31 that faith does not nullify the law. He uses the strongest possible epithet to declare that. We could translate it, “Absolutely Not!” Also he uses the same Greek word in both passages for abolish or nullify – katargeo.

So we know that Paul did not consider the law to be nullified or abolished. What then did he mean by his statement?

It’s clear that the main thing he’s talking about is the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. This wall has been destroyed through the death of Jesus, as he points out in verse 16. The result is that both Jews and Gentiles are together as one new man.

The law clearly had a part in this separation between Jew and Gentile. Paul pointed out in Romans 3:2 that the Jews have a great advantage over Gentiles in that they were entrusted with the very words of God. They had the instructions about how to live in a way that was pleasing to God. The Gentiles for the most part were unfamiliar with these instructions about how to live.

The law has also played a part in the hostility that Gentiles have historically held toward Jews. Unfortunately, Christians have been guilty of antisemitism as much as any other group throughout history. Jews lived differently than others and considered themselves a people chosen by God. Thus others hated and persecuted them. This hostility is alluded to by Paul in verses 14 and 16.

Given the context and Paul’s other statements, it’s fair to conclude that what has been abolished is the law’s role as a barrier, a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. That seems to be the emphasis of the passage.

When you think about it, was the wall destroyed in order to let the Jews out or to let the Gentiles in? Is it God’s intention that the Jews give up their heritage of revelation and live like Gentiles? Or did he intend to let believing Gentiles in to join with Israel in living lives according to God’s instructions? The answer seems obvious.

The bulk of the passage in Ephesians 2 and other places in Paul’s writings talks of Gentiles being brought near, joining with Israel, and being grafted into the Jewish olive tree. The unique possession of the Jews is God’s self-revelation in his law. That is now available to the Gentiles as well.

If more evidence is needed, Paul goes on in the fourth chapter of Ephesians to exort his readers (and insist on it) that they no longer live as the Gentiles do. Since he is speaking to Gentiles who lived like this in the past, what is the change he is looking for?

The obvious antonym of living like Gentiles is living like Jews. Paul is implying here that once Gentiles have believed in Jesus, they should change their lifestyle to a non-Gentile (i.e. Jewish) one and live according to God’s instructions to his covenant people, of whom they are now a part.

The Definition of Sin

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul expresses a theology of salvation through faith in Jesus. The starting point is usually that all men have sinned, and sin results in condemnation. Thus the default state for all is a state of condemnation.

This raises the question of “what is sin?”. If sin is to cause condemnation, it helps to be able to define that causation. In both Hebrew and Greek the word for sin comes from an archery term meaning “missing the mark”. But what is the mark?

In the case of Adam’s original sin, the mark was a direct command from God, not to eat of a particular tree. Under the influence of his wife, who had not been a party to the command, he ate the fruit, and thus sinned, disobeying a direct command. Paul discusses this in the latter half of Romans 5.

But in general, when Paul defines sin in the Roman epistle, he repeatedly ties it to the law. For example, at the end of the discussion in Romans 5 he says, “The law was added so that the trespass might increase” (5:20).

He says similar things earlier in the epistle. In chapter 3, after making the point that no one will be declared righteous by “works of law”, he states that, “rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (3:20) He makes a similar point in chapter four when he says that “law brings wrath. And where there is no law, there is no transgression.” (4:15)

The first epistle of John makes it even clearer. “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” (I John 3:4) So for both Paul and John the definition of sin seems to be transgressing the law. The law is necessary to define sin.

This brings up an internal self-contradiction in much Christian theology. On the one hand, Christ’s death is necessary for salvation since all have sinned (transgressed the law), and are therefore condemned to eternal damnation. On the other hand, much of Christianity believes that the law is no longer in effect since the death of Christ. So we are condemned for violating a standard that doesn’t exist anymore. You can see where the problem lies.

It’s true that in Romans 2 Paul states that, “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.” (2:12) This makes it seem that sin can be “apart from the law.” But the context makes it clear that Paul is contrasting Jews, who have knowledge of the law, and Gentiles, who generally don’t. The following verses make it clear that they both are accountable to the same standard, whether they know about it or not.

It’s a shame that many Christians in the second century took an anti-Jewish, anti-Torah turn in order to preserve themselves from the Fiscus Judaicus, the onerous tax on Jews and those who lived Jewishly. The first century followers of Jesus seem to have embraced the law as God’s standard for a holy life, based on statements by both Jesus (e.g. Matt. 5:18) and Paul (e.g. Romans 3:31).

For many centuries Christianity as a whole has been in open rebellion against God’s law. It is the intention of this blog to show how the New Testament confirms the role of God’s law and to summon believers back to it. Then we will be like the saints in Revelation who “obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 12:17 cp. Rev. 14:12) May we become like them.

Passover in I Corinthians

Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians seems to have been written immediately before or after the biblical festival of Passover. He mentions it a number of times in addressing his readers.

One reason for thinking that Paul was writing at Passover time is the explicit time frame that he mentions in chapter 16. He expresses a desire to visit Corinth after going through Macedonia. But he is currently in Ephesus, and he says, “I will stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost…” (16:8). Pentecost, as you know, is the Greek term for the biblical festival of Shavuot, or Weeks, that comes fifty days after Passover.

There are also internal evidences that Paul had Passover on his mind when writing to the Corinthians. In chapter five he is discussing immorality within the congregation. He is comparing the sin with leaven/yeast in bread in that a little of it works its way through the whole batch, so they should get rid of the sin, like unleavened bread. “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.” (5:7-8)

Even though Paul is interpreting the Passover bread and yeast in a somewhat allegorical sense, it’s clear that he expects his readers (mostly Gentiles) to observe the Passover and learn lessons about life from its symbolism.

Paul goes even deeper into discussing Passover in chapter 11 when he criticizes their actions during a recent Passover seder. In the traditional seder, there is a lot of liturgy to go through before the meal is served, and Paul criticizes the impatience of some (perhaps Gentiles) who go ahead and start eating the food before the proper time in the ceremony. He clarifies that the purpose of celebrating Passover is not to eat (you can do that at home) but to commemorate the things God has done.

He then goes into a review of Christ’s last Passover seder with his disciples as recorded in the gospels. On this occasion, Christ gives no hint that he intends to initiate a new ceremony. Instead, he is celebrating Passover with his disciples in the biblically prescribed manner. There is a lot of symbolism in the events of the seder that recall the deliverance from Egypt. Jesus is telling his disciples to apply this same symbolism to his passion and death which delivers from sin.

Jesus has already been compared to the Passover lamb by John at his baptism. (John 1:29) Now he compares himself to the Passover matzah, the unleavened bread. In the same way that the matzah is ceremonially broken at the seder, Jesus’ body is broken in death.

He uses the third cup (out of four), the cup of Redemption, to signify his blood to be shed on the cross to bring redemption from sin. As the blood of the lamb was spread on the doorpost of the house in Egypt so that God would not exact punishment on that household, so the shed blood of Jesus tells God to spare the believer from the punishment for sin that Jesus took, inaugurating the new covenant that is foreseen in Jeremiah 31.

Jesus then went on to instruct his disciples to continue to observe Passover until his return, but when they did it, to apply the symbolism to his suffering and death as well as to the deliverance from Egypt. “For whenever you eat this bread (the Passover matzah) and drink this cup (the third cup of Passover), you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (I Cor. 11:26)

It’s a shame that so many followers of Jesus have misapplied this passage to create a new ceremony that has no biblical warrant at all, and to dilute it by performing it monthly, weekly, or daily. Many of these same people ignore Passover entirely, and substitute other, man-made holidays for the ones God ordained.

It wasn’t an accident that the passion of Jesus took place during the Passover season; it was God’s perfect timing. And Paul urges his readers, Gentiles as well as Jews, to celebrate the Passover in commemoration of God’s gracious deliverance, both from Egypt, and its analog, the redemption of Christ on the cross.

The Tension Between Law and Faith

In the third chapter of Romans Paul focuses on a natural tension that arises. He has been talking about demonstrating righteousness by keeping the law rather than merely hearing it. Some people might conclude from this that you become righteous by keeping the law. So he devotes chapter three to a discussion of this tension.

He starts out by pointing out the advantage of the Jew in having been exposed to God’s words and commands. But even some of them did not have faith, the circumcision of the heart that we talked about last week. He goes on to declare that no one is righteous in himself, whether Jew or Gentile; all are under sin.

He then goes on to discuss the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus, apart from merely keeping the law. He explains how Jesus had to die to fulfill the demand for justice, since he wasn’t punishing the sinners themselves.

A phrase that Paul uses several times in this passage (as well as others) is “works of law” (ergon nomou). It is not “works of the law”, but just “works of law”. Some treat it as if it means observing the law of God given in the Hebrew Scriptures. The phrase is not used in rabbinic literature, but it is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There it appears to refer to specific actions that mark one as Jewish rather than Gentile. In light of this Paul seems to be making the point that a person is not righteous simply because he’s a Jew. He’s not discussing the merits of keeping the law.

In verses 27 and 28 Paul uses the phrase twice, to argue against boasting, and to contrast with justification by faith. In the next verse, however, he appears to draw a parallel by asking, “Is God the God of Jews only” Is he not the God of Gentiles too?” So in light of the meaning of the phrase “works of law” in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it appears that Paul’s main argument boils down to “you aren’t saved just by being a Jew”.

In verse 30 he points out that God justifies the Jew and the Gentile in the same way, through faith. Jews or Gentiles who embrace God through the death of Jesus have this righteousness.

But having emphasized that salvation, for anyone, is through faith, Paul makes a special point of correcting a misconception that has since become prevalent among believers. He says, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Absolutely not! Rather, we uphold the law!” This is Paul’s last word on the subject, and it never seems to get quoted when discussing Paul’s position on the law.

Interestingly, Paul makes a similar statement in I Corinthians 7:19. Paraphrased, it would say, “It doesn’t matter if you’re a Jew or a Gentile. Keep God’s commands!” Again, this isn’t for the purpose of obtaining salvation, but out of love for God. As John says in I John 5:3, “This is love for God, to obey his commands.” It’s hard to imagine that so many people are convinced that the New Testament teaches against keeping God’s law.

The Law in Romans

We’ve seen in some past posts how Paul viewed God’s law in the book of Acts and how he even went out of his way to provide evidence to quell the rumor that he was teaching people to disregard the law. (Acts 21) But what about his epistles? Do they claim that the law is no longer in effect, as some people think? Let’s look at his epistle to the Romans and see what it says about this topic.

We should first notice that Paul declares the primacy of Jews over Gentiles in the faith of Jesus. He says that the gospel “is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (1:16). In chapter three he states that Jews have much advantage over Gentiles because “they have been entrusted with the very words of God” (3:1-2).

Back in chapter two he addresses Jews and their association with the law. He says, “You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” (2:23) It’s clear that he thinks that Jews who adhere to God and his law should keep it so as not to dishonor God. But should the law be kept by Jews only?

He goes on to say, “If those who are not circumcised (i.e. Gentiles) keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker” (2:26-27). It’s clear that he considers Gentiles keeping the law as a good thing.

Earlier in chapter two he addresses the difference between hearing the law and obeying it. “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (2:13). He doesn’t mean by this that keeping the law brings salvation, as he makes clear in 3:20. But keeping the law is a way of declaring that you are righteous, that you have been saved.

Admittedly he’s talking primarily to Jews at this point and contrasting those who talk about the law with those who actually keep it. But he does go on to include Gentiles in the conversation when he speaks favorably that “Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law… they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts” (2:14-15).

What’s this about having the requirements of the law written on the heart? The idea echoes the language of Jeremiah when he announced the coming of the new covenant (for Jews only) with God saying, “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts” (Jeremiah 31:33).

Paul uses slightly different language for the same concept at the end of Romans 2. “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.” (2:28-29). Circumcision of the heart is something that had been urged since Moses (cp. Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6). And here Paul declares that it’s available to Gentiles as well.

Elsewhere in his epistles Paul talks about believing Gentiles being included in Israel in different terms: being grafted into the olive tree (Romans 11:17-24), becoming one new man, or a building in which God lives (Ephesians 2:11-22). But it’s clear that when Gentiles accept Jesus’ sacrifice and embrace the God and the people of Israel, they are considered to be a part of the greater Israel, due to their heart condition — circumcision of the heart.

Paul summarizes this in chapter 3 when he talks about the mystery that was revealed to him. “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise of Christ Jesus” (3:6). He goes on to explain how this mystery of Gentile believers becoming one with Israel is to demonstrate the wisdom of God to the entire spiritual world. Praise God for his wisdom!

Peter on Paul

It is well known that when Jesus and the apostles lived and taught, the only Scripture that they had was the Hebrew Bible, sometimes called the Old Testament. This Hebrew Bible was affirmed by Jesus many times, for example, when he said, “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). It was also affirmed by other apostles in their letters, for example when Paul wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed” (II Timothy 3:16).

These words testify to the scriptural status of the Hebrew Bible. But is there anything that testifies similarly for the New Testament? Since the New Testament was not assembled into a collection until many years after it was written, we wouldn’t expect it to testify to itself. But there is a place in II Peter that appears to do so.

Peter’s second letter is thought by many to have been written by someone other than Peter. But one of the points he makes early is that he’s not making up the things he said about Jesus; he’s an eye witness. If he’s writing pretending to be someone he’s not, this testimony wouldn’t have much credibility. But as Peter, he certainly has standing to tell us what Jesus taught.

But he also seems to affirm Paul’s writings as Scripture. In the third chapter he writes, “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (3:15-16) By comparing Paul’s letters to “the other Scriptures”, he affirms the scriptural status of Paul’s writings.

In discussing Paul’s letters, his main point is that they contain some things that are hard to understand, and that some people distort them through misunderstanding. Does Peter give any hint of how people misunderstand and distort Paul’s letters? Actually, he does.

He follows up the previous verse by warning his readers to “be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position” (3:17). So misunderstanding Paul can lead to “the error of lawless men”.

We have seen how this has played out in the history of the church. Despite clear and emphatic statements by both Jesus (Matthew 5:17-19) and Paul (Romans 3:31) about the continuing validity of God’s law, the bulk of the church took an anti-Jewish and anti-Torah turn in the second century, and has been insisting ever since that God’s law is obsolete. They justify this stance by citing some passages from Paul’s letters that may seem to teach such a thing on the surface, but on closer examination are often teaching that keeping the law does not save a person.

We will be looking at some of these passages in future posts, as well as passages where Paul affirms the law. But it’s easy to see how prophetic Peter was when he warned people to avoid distorting Paul’s letters and falling into the error of lawless men. That’s exactly what happened, and we’re still suffering the consequences.

Paul vs. Peter in Antioch

A troubling passage for me has been the section in Galatians 2 where Paul opposes Peter to his face, stating that he was clearly in the wrong. Both of these men were apostles, followers of Jesus. If they differed on an issue, how could we determine who was right? And why would they differ in the first place?

In looking at the passage in Galatians 2:11-14 based on what it says, trying to avoid presuppositions, we see that Peter was alternating between two courses of action. Sometimes he was eating with “Gentiles”. There is no indication whether the Gentiles mentioned here are believers in Jesus; they are simply described as Gentiles.

When a delegation of Jews comes, sent by James in Jerusalem, he acts differently, and withdraws from eating with these Gentiles. One of these actions is viewed by Paul as hypocrisy. But which one, and why?

There is some ambiguity around this situation, as I see it. But it seems to be cleared up a little by Paul’s direct words to Peter. “You are a Jew, but you live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew.” This seems to be the very definition of hypocricy, one’s life not matching his identity or claims.

In another epistle, the one to the Ephesians, Paul goes into more depth regarding what he thinks of living like a Gentile. Ephesians is the letter in which Paul points out that Gentile believers in Jesus were once “excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise.” (2:12) But in Christ they are now brought near, fellow citizens with God’s people. (2:19)

In Romans 11 Paul describes this same transformation as being wild olive branches grafted into the olive tree of Israel. Clearly a believing Gentile has a new identity, as part of the commonwealth of Israel, the larger people of God.

But in Ephesians 4:17 Paul points out the difference this should make in the believer’s life. “So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do.” Clearly Paul does not approve of believers living like Gentiles. For a Jewish believer like Peter to do so would be even worse.

Paul goes on in the Galatians passage to say to Peter, “If you, a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you expect to get Gentiles to live Jewishly?” That, after all, is one of the results of the gospel, to get “Gentile sinners” (as Paul refers to them in the following verse) to embrace the God of Israel and the Israel of God, to leave a life of sin and begin to live according to God’s commands.

A sticking point for most translators in this verse is the Greek word that they take as meaning to force or compel. A quick review of the half-dozen times it’s used in the New Testament shows that it usually means something much weaker, like to influence.

There is apparently more to the story of Peter in Antioch that we’re not told. My best guess is that if Paul is accusing Peter of living like a Gentile, he is probably eating with Gentiles in situations which are inappropriate for a believer to be part of.

It’s true that Jesus ate with tax collectors a “sinners”. But these were Jewish sinners, and eating with them would not entail breaking God’s laws about what not to eat. Perhaps Peter, for the sake of evangelism, was going to the extent of eating foods that God had prohibited in his law. This is the only thing that I can see that would cause Paul to accuse him for living like a Gentile.

The point Paul is making in the context is that Gentiles are saved by faith in Jesus, not by becoming Jews. I’m not sure how this relates to Peter’s hypocrisy in eating with Gentiles. But I’m also not sure how it relates to the typical Christian interpretation of this passage of Peter drawing back from eating with Gentiles.

The lesson that I would draw from this passage is that there are lengths to which we should not go in our attempts to evangelize. If our lifestyle leads to breaking God’s commands to his people, then we are being hypocritical, even if our intentions are good.

As Jesus pointed out in Matthew 28:20, the essence of discipleship is following his commands. And that certainly includes following God’s commands to his people, as Jesus affirmed so strongly in Matthew 5:17-20 and elsewhere.